SajjadAhmad wrote:
The number of violations of environmental regulations recorded each year is directly proportional to the number of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials assigned to a particular industry: the more EPA officials there are to police it, the more a particular industry will be charged with violations. So, the allegedly environmentally insensitive chemical companies harm the environment no more than do other industries, but their violations provoke such strong public outcry and EPA reaction that they are charged with more violations than any other industry.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument made by the author in the above passage?
A. Egregious violations of the Environmental Protection Act by other industries rarely receive the kind of publicity that chemical companies' violations do.
B. If less dramatic violations of the Environmental Protection Act by other industries were actively investigated, the number of recorded violations in these industries would increase dramatically.
C. The impact of the Environmental Protection Act on the U.S. chemical industry has significantly reduced environmental damage done by that industry.
D. The number of recorded violations of the Environmental Protection Act by a particular industry is always directly proportional to the number of EPA officers assigned to that industry.
E. Other industries have a higher compliance rate with Environmental Protection Act restrictions than does the chemical industry.
We know that the no. of violations of regulation is directly proportional to the no. of officials assigned to an industry. The more officials, the higher the charges. The author argues that the chemical industry isn't "worse" than other industries, but they provoke outcry and are charged more than any other industry. This needs to be weaken.
A. Egregious violations of the Environmental Protection Act by other industries rarely receive the kind of publicity that chemical companies' violations do.
Out of scope, we want to weaken the argument with the fact that the chemical industry is worse than other industries
B. If less dramatic violations of the Environmental Protection Act by other industries were actively investigated, the number of recorded violations in these industries would increase dramatically.
Out of scope, this strengthens the argument
C. The impact of the Environmental Protection Act on the U.S. chemical industry has significantly reduced environmental damage done by that industry.
Out of scope, just because it has reduced damage doesn't mean that it is overall better off.
D. The number of recorded violations of the Environmental Protection Act by a particular industry is always directly proportional to the number of EPA officers assigned to that industry.
No new info E. Other industries have a higher compliance rate with Environmental Protection Act restrictions than does the chemical industry.
CORRECT -> because this means that the chemical industry is worse than other industries