Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands

IMO (A)

I choose A.

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
As regulations/restrictions are framed by government, the government will never seek to abolish the restrictions. If the park is managed by private environmental groups, the people seeking to abolish the restrictions that stops them from exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private group and get those laws/restrictions abolished.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. (might arrive at alternate ways to achieve the conservation objectives)
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public. [color=#0000FF](out of scope)
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas. (this will lead to conservation)
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources. (out of scope)

In order to solve this type of CR problem (weaken the conclusion), you need to properly understand the argument structure, especially any key assumptions (unstated by required by the argument).

Here is the argument structure:
Some [people/groups] favor putting government enterprises under private control. Premise
The national park system is run by the government. Premise
Conservation efforts would be better served if private environmental groups operated/financed National Parks. Suggestion/Conclusion

Back to assumptions - they bridge the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion. In our case here the premises only establish that some people favor private control and the national parks are currently run by the government. How can we conclude anything about how well the conservation efforts will be served? We have to make assumptions about the private environmental groups ability to serve these conservation efforts. Our weakening answer will most strongly attack the assumption that private environmental groups can and will serve conservation efforts.

A. If people seeking to abolish evironmental regulations gained control over the private environmental groups running the national parks, we could no longer conclude that conservation efforts would be served. This seriously weakens the conclusion (suggestion).
B. This does weaken the argument somewhat because it casts some doubt on the ability to provide the BEST conservation efforts. The suggestion, however, is that private groups will better serve conservation efforts, not that they will always provide the best possible solutions. While it does cast some doubt, it does not invalidate the conclusion (suggestion) as A does.
C/D/E. All are out of scope.

A is correct.

Why not E?

E suggests the failure of Private group despite no crunch of resources. This Shows that Conservation might not be better served by private group.

ChiranjeevSingh , please help !!

Passage Analysis

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands
There are at least a few people who support changing government owned enterprises to private ownership.

suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if
They say that the aims of nature conservation will be better served

private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system,
Private environmental groups were made in charge of running and financing the national park system.

which is now run by the government.
Currently the national park system is run by the government.

Question Stem Analysis

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

This is a weaken question stem. It asks which of the following if true weakens the argument most.

Prethinking

Weaken framework

What new information will decrease one’s belief in the statement that putting private environmental groups in charge of the national park instead of the government will better serve conservation objectives?

Given that some people who favor privatization support the idea.

Weakener 1- Private environmental groups may be infiltrated by people who have exploitative intentions.
Weakener 2-Private environmental groups do not have the management experience to handle conservation efforts of such a large scale.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
CORRECT
This option is in line with our weakener 1. Hence this is the correct answer choice.

(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
INCORRECT.
Whether they agree or not, what will get implemented is what matters. Also, how the non-agreement hurts the conservation objectives is not clarified in the option. Hence this is an incorrect answer choice.

(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.
INCORRECT
How the private environmental groups amass funds does not tell us why it is not better to give them control over the national park system. Hence this is an incorrect option.

(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
INCORRECT
The option does not say how this condition stands against meeting the conservation goals. Hence it is not the right answer.

(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
INCORRECT
This option speaks about a specific conservation objective – and tells us that even with sufficient funds, private groups may not be able to achieve that particular objective. But the option does not provide any information to compare governmental management to private management for this objective. So, this does not in any way weaken the notion that private groups will do a better job than the government. Hence this cannot be the correct answer. ­

Are we having 2 weakener's for this question? Option A and Option B, with one having severe consequences than the other?

ChiranjeevSingh, please suggest!

Only (A) truly weakens the argument.

Some other choices, such as (B) and (C), may seem to indicate that the suggestion is not a good one, but don't really.

For instance, what (B) says, that "private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives" doesn't mean that the plan of "putting governmental enterprises into private hands" is not a good one.

After all, even if private groups do not always agree on the best ways of achieving the objectives, they could still all use ways that are very effective in achieving the objectives. For instance, one group could operate one way, and another group could operate in a different way, and at the same time, both groups could have great success in achieving conservation objectives.

Isn't B also weakening the argument because it directly attacks the "conservation objectives" while in A it talks about change of leadership ­which may or may not cause exploitation of natural resources.