The right answer is D.Conclusion: This country does not need any more restrictions on pollution. In fact, we should abolish those that are currently on the books.
Premise: In spite of various restrictions, pollution levels have actually increased over the past 40 years. Most importantly, dramatic statistics show that, as pollution levels have increased over this period, the general health of the population has improved rather than deteriorated.
The author concludes that the country does not need any more restrictions on pollution and that current restrictions on pollution should be abolished. This because of available information pollution levels have increased over the past 40 years in spite of the restrictions. In addition, there is data that suggests that although pollution levels have gone up, the general health of the people have increased.
To weaken this argument, we need an answer choice that suggests that pollution levels would have been worse over the past 40 years had there been no restrictions on pollution. In addition, were the pollution levels higher than it currently it, the general health of the people would have been worse off. In short, although pollution levels have generally increased, it does not mean that the current restrictions do no play a role in keeping it from reaching levels higher than current levels and that the improvement in general health are not dependent on relatively lower pollution levels amidst the restrictions on pollution in the country. Looking at the answer choices, D is in line with the reasoning above, hence the D is the right answer.
Quote:
(A) The general health of this country’s population has improved over the past 40 years primarily because of new advances in medicine and nutrition, not because of pollution.
This option somehow strengthens the argument above rather than weaken it. Hence A is incorrect.
Quote:
(B) There are several countries in the world in which there have been no restrictions on pollution over the past 40 years, and pollution levels have actually increased.
This option is irrelevant to the conclusion above. We are unsure whether the absence of restrictions on pollution has negatively impacted the general health in such countries. If the absence of restrictions has negatively impacted the general health, then the author's conclusion is weakened but if it does not negatively impact the general health in those countries, then the argument is strengthened. B is incorrect.
Quote:
(C) Similar statistics show that, in several countries, the general health of the population has improved over the past 40 years, while pollution levels have actually decreased.
This option is also irrelevant to the conclusion of the author as it neither strengthens nor weakens it.
Quote:
(D) Pollution levels would have increased even more than they have and the general health of the population would not have improved as much as it has without the restrictions that have been on the books.
This is the correct answer.
Quote:
(E) In the period prior to the past 40 years, pollution restrictions were nonexistent in this country and the general health of the population improved at a far slower rate than it did during the past 40 years.
We are concerned about the period over the last 40 years not beyond. This option is irrelevant to the argument above. E is incorrect.