The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of go

Question

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing. As a result, few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement.

(B) No environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible.

(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing.

(D) Most environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems.

(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits.

Source: LSAT

kraizada84 · Accepted Answer

few serious ecological problems solved --> solutions NOT made economically enticing.

NOT economically enticing--> NOT major changes in consumer habits

NOT major changes in consumer habits--> NOT solution to any environmental problem (not the result of government mismanagement)
=> few serious ecological problems solved--> RESULT OF GOVERNMENT MISMANAGEMENT

HENCE A.

KarishmaB · Answer

First note that "few" means "hardly any". It's very close to saying "none".

This is what the argument says:

Solution to any environmental problem (which is not due to government mismanagement) only lies in major changes in consumer habits. 
But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing.

Conclusion: Few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

In terms of variables, this is what the argument looks like:

Solution to A is only in B.
But B will happen only if C.

Valid conclusion that can be drawn: Solution to A only if C
Conclusion drawn in our argument: Solution to generic A only if C

Note that the argument draws a conclusion very similar to our valid conclusion except that it talks about serious ecological problems but does not mention whether they are due to Govt mismanagement. If we are saying that serious ecological problems will not be solved unless C, we are assuming that these serious ecological problems are not due to Govt mismanagement.

Option (A) tells us exactly this.

gmat1220 · Answer

Eliminate the extreme all - go answers.

umeshpatil · Answer

1. Problems caused by either Govt or consumer. So, If problems are caused not by Govt mismanagement, then it is caused surely due to consumer behavior.

2. Assuming Problems are not caused by Govt mismanagement i.e. the problems can be solved by changing consumer behaviour.

3. Consumer behavior can be changed if choice is affordable.

4. Few serious problems which can be solved if solutions are economically affordable. but As there are very few problems which can be solved by changing consumer behavior. These problems are result of Govt mismanagement

In option 1, Take Problem X=Ecological Problem, One of few serious problems. 
As there are very few serious problems which can not be solved by making solution economically enticing( i.e. changing consumer behavior) . It is result of Government mismanagement.

AKG1593 · Answer

Option A.
Environmental problems caused by:
1.govt. mismgt.
2.consumer habits
Those caused by 2 can be solved ONLY IF SOLUTIONS ARE ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Conclusion:FEW PROBLEMS can be solved UNTIL SOLUTIONS ARE ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Clearly,we have to assume that most problems are caused by consumer habits rather than govt.mismgt.

Posted from my mobile device

ramannanda9 · Answer

To put it simply, It is a missing link or information question.

The solution to   any   environmental problem that is  not
the result of government mismanagement   can only lie
in major changes in consumer habits.
But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such
changes are economically enticing. 
As a result,  few serious ecological problems will be solved  unless the
solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows
logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result
of government mismanagement. 
 (B) No environmental problems that stem from
government mismanagement have solutions
that are economically feasible.  Not given, is not required for conclusion 
(C)  Major changes in consumer habits can be made
economically enticing.  Maybe they can maybe they cannot be, But does it provide the missing link to reach the conclusion.
(D)  Most environmental problems that are not the
result of government mismanagement are major
ecological problems.   maybe most, maybe some (in context of the entirety).Does not help to reach the conclusion
(E)  Few serious ecological problems can be solved
by major changes in consumer habits.   maybe few, maybe more, not given and not relevant to reach conclusion.

Analysis

From the stem, we are given that    any   problem that is not result of governmental mismanagement can only be solved, if there is change in consumer habit and which in turn will only happen if changes are economically enticing.

Conclusion:  few serious ecological problems will be solved  unless the
solutions are made economically enticing.

See the missing link ?
From the premise we know that non governmental problems can be solved only if consumer habit changes, which ,in turn, will only happen if the changes are economically enticing, so how come few problems will still be solved, if changes are not economically enticing ? 
This could only happen if these few problems are governmental mismanagement problems.

A mentions this missing premise, therefore completes the argument and is required to reach the conclusion.

elizaanne · Answer

The important thing to note with this argument is that the premises are really about "any environmental problem that is not
the result of government mismanagement" and the conclusion is about "serious ecological problems." So really the premises are about a subset of the problems that the conclusion is trying to make a general statement about. If, for example, there were 100 serious ecological problems and only one of them was not the result of government mismanagement, then the premises really wouldn't be able to lead to the conclusion. Thus, we need to find a answer choice that corrects this problem. (A) does this perfectly.

Kurtosis · Answer

Major changes in consumer habits will help to provide a solution to environmental problem.
Economically enticing changes will bring about major changes in consumer habits

Conclusion: Few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing. --> Few serious problems will be solved by major changes in consumer habits.

For the conclusion to hold true, we must assume that serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits.

Negating E - Few serious ecological problems cannot be solved by major changes in consumer habits. This shatters the conclusion.

In my opinion, answer is E

sayantanc2k · Answer

There are 2 types of environmental problems:
Type 1. Problems NOT caused by government mismanagement.
Type 2. Problems caused by government mismanagement.

The core of the argument deals with solving Type 1 problems, problems that are NOT caused by government mismanagement.

Many problems (of Type 1) will be solved if there are economically enticing changes, implying that there are a few Type 2 problems, problems that resulted from government mismanagement.

Why B is wrong?

Now whether those few type 2 problems are economically feasible is not relevant to the core of the argument because the argument deals with solving the type 1 problems.

Therefore B can be eliminated.

Why D is wrong?

As for D, it is not required to assume whether the type 1 problems are majorly serious not. Negate the option D: most of type 1 problems are not major. yet the argument does not breakdown. It is still possible to solve many environmental problem by economically enticing changes even though they are les than 50% of all type 1 problem.

Since negating the option D does not break down the argument, D is not the correct option.

ankitbarak · Answer

X UNLESS Y ---> NEGATE X -> Y  
  CONCLUSION/GOAL:    MOST SERIOUS ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS ==== WILL BE SOLVED IF ====>  SOLUTIONS ARE ECONOMICAL

A.  CORRECT ANSWER  
 NEGATE IT:  “ MOST  serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement.” ==> cannot be solved economically ( GOAL/CONCLUSION is breaked) 
B.  NEGATE:  “ SOME  environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible.” ---WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MOST NOT SOME so   ELIMINATED  
C.   OUT OF CONTEXT   ---talking about habits not problems 
D.  NEGATE:  “ Few(Half or less than half)  environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems.”—talking about only few problems so   ELIMINATED  
E.   OUT OF CONTEXT :  Not talking about Economical

uchihaitachi · Answer

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing. As a result, few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

We need to logically arrive at a conclusion that justifies few problems will be solved if consumer habits are not changed.

(A)  Few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement. 
 ----> if few serious problems are the result of government mismanagement, that means that consumers are responsible for those ecological problems. And unless the consumer habits are changed, 
those few problems will not be solved.

(B)  No environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible. 
----> The presence of "No" makes it an extreme option. In addition, nothing is mentioned about the feasibility of solutions for problems arising from government mismanagement.

(C)  Major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing. 
 ---> if it can be made economically enticing then it is possible that the problems could be solved but it does not help us reach the conclusion as it is already mentioned in the stimulus.

(D)  Most environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems. 
 ----> we cannot identify that the environmental problems caused by government mismanagement are major problems or not.

(E)  Few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits .
 ----> The stimulus does not quantify the problems that will be solved by major changes in habits. It only says that if changes are not made few problems can be solved.

If you like my solution, do give some kudos!

auradediligodo · Answer

Hi everyone, 
here is how I would tackle this question

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing. As a result, few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

---------------------------------

Pre-thinking:
 There are two categories of serious environmental problems:
#1 the ones that can be solved by major changes in C'habits
#2 the ones caused by the government

Now: Sentence 2 states that #1 can b solved only if made economically enticing

Conclusion: Only few serious E problems can be solved without making the solution enticing.

The  assumption  here is pretty straightforward: If #1 can be solved ONLY by making the solution enticing #2 are the the few ones that can be solved without making the solution enticing

---------------------------------

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement.
 In line with pre-thinking, hence correct

---------------------------------

(B) No environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible.
 Not In line with pre-thinking, hence incorrect

---------------------------------

(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing.
 Not In line with pre-thinking, hence incorrect

---------------------------------

(D) Most environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems.
 Not In line with pre-thinking, hence incorrect

---------------------------------

(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits.
 Not In line with pre-thinking, hence incorrect 
 Note that this statement is wrong since the argument states that any (if not caused by G's mismanagement) environmental problem ca be solved through major changes in consumer habits

jayarora · Answer

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing. As a result, few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Conclusion> few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

In what case, few ecological problems will not be solved despite the solutions being economically enticing? What if all the problems are the result of govt mismanagement? In that scenario, changing consumer benefits or economic benefits will not be able to help solve any ecological problem. 
So the assumption should be "Not all problems are the result of government mismanagement".

However, choice A says "Few of the problems are the result of government mismanagement". How is this choice correct? What is the negation of this statement?

Thanks in advance!

aniket16c · Answer

Thank you  vjsharma25  for posting such an amazing question.

Argument - There are 10 environmental problems. Out of these 10 there are "N" problems caused by government mismanagement and "10-N" problems caused by factors other than govt. mismanagement. 
To address the "10-N" problems --> we need to make major changes in consumer habits --> to make these major changes we need to make them financially attractive for consumers.
Conclusion: Unless we make the solutions to the "10-N" problems economically enticing --> very few ecologically problems of the 10 problems will be solved.

Note: We are jumping from providing solution to "10-N" problems to stating that very few of the 10 problems will be solved. How do we know that? We can make such a statement only if "10-N" constitutes a majority. If N = 7, 10-N = 3, then majority of the problems can be solved without the requirement to make them financially attractive.

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement.
- This is exactly what is stated in the note. N is a very small number in front of 10. Thus majority of the problems = 10-N. Hence unless we make the 10-N financially attractive majority of 10 problems will not be solved.
- Correct

(B) No environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible.
- Negate: some "N" problems have solutions that are economically feasible. 
- These additional N in fact strengthen the conclusion. Now, in addition to the "10-N" problems that require a financially attractive solution, we have few problems from the "N" category, further adding to the problems that require a financially attractive solution. 
- Wrong

(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing.
- Negate: Major changes cannot be made economically enticing --> Thus out of "10-N" problems we are saying 80% of 10-N problems do not have a financially attractive solution. This means we are further strengthening the fact that very few problems can actually be solved.
- Wrong

(D) Most environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems.
- We have two category of environmental problems - a. solved by govt b. not solved by govt.
- There is no mention of "major ecological problems" plus their impact on either of the two categories.
- Wrong

(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits.
- IMO this is just a restatement of the conclusion. 
-Wrong

SiriSandela · Answer

Can someone please explain the meaning of the last sentence of the question?
"few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing."

Does this mean, Few problems will be solved only if solutions are made economically enticing? 
or Does this mean, few problems will be solved if solutions are not made economically enticing?

Thanks.

nightblade354 · Answer

SiriSandela ,

It means that if solutions are NOT made economically enticing, then few serious ecological problems will be solved.

Vishalcv · Answer

Let me try to make this simpler . C is wrong because the concern is not whether the ecological problems will be solved. The conclusion is that the problems could be solved only if they are economically enticing. Negating C - Major changes in consumer habits can not be made economically enticing. This only means that the changes may not happen. C could have been the answer if the conclusion went something like " All ecological problems that do not involve the government can be solved" . So it has to be A. I am willing to take any queries you have

Thanks

lehung978 · Answer

A and D is similar to a negation of each other, isn't it?

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of go

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of go

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards