Let's use the following notations for better understanding :
Damming the Merv River : A1
provide irrigation for the dry land in its upstream areas : E1
reducing the availability and quality of the water downstream : E2
Productivity in upstream areas : P1
Productivity in downstrean areas : P2
Now, as per the statement : A1 --> E1 and E2; E1 will affect P1 and E2 will affect P2.
=> Increase in P1 < Loss of P2
=> A1 overall impact is not positiveQues : The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following?
Pre-thinking : An action (A1) leads to two effects (E1 and E2), overall impact of A1 is not +ve.
Lets analyse the options now :
(A) disease-causing bacteria in eggs can be destroyed by overcooking the eggs, but the eggs then become much less appetizing; health is more important than taste, however, so it is better to overcook eggs than not to do so. -
Incorrect :
as overcooking leads to two outcomes : destroy the bacteria and eggs become less apetizing. Since 1st result benefits > 2nd result demerits hence, overcooking should be done. This conclusion is in opposite direction to the argument.(B) Increasing the price of transatlantic telephone calls will discourage many private individuals from making them. But since most transatlantic telephone calls are made by businesses, not by private individuals, a rate increase will not reduce telephone company profits. -
Incorrect :
Increasing price is leading to only one outcome : discourage many private individuals from making calls. Hence, here effects of the two outcomes are not weighed and not a relevant comparison.(C) A new highway will allow suburban commuters to reach the city more quickly, but not without causing increased delays within the city that will more than offset any time saved on the highway. Therefore, the highway will not educe suburban commuters’ overall commuting time. -
Correct :
New Highway willl lead to two effects : suburban commuters to reach the city more quickly and increased delays within the city. The -ve impact (by 2nd effect) is offsetting the +ve imapact (by 1st effect), hence the new highway will not have a +ve outcome.(D) Doctors can prescribe antibiotics fro many minor illnesses, but antibiotics are expensive, and these illnesses can often be cured by rest alone. Therefore, it is better to rest at home than to see a doctor for these illnesses. -
Incorrect :
Doctors prescription of antibiotics lead to only one outcome and an alternate to this action is sugessted. This does not discuss the two outcomes of doctors prescription of antibiotics. Hence, this choice is not similar to argument.(E) A certain chemical will kill garden pest that damage tomatoes, but that chemical will damage certain other plants more severely than the pests damage the tomatoes, so the only garden that will benefit from the use of the chemical are those in which only tomatoes are grown. -
Incorrect :
Usage of certain chemical cause two effects : kill pest that damage tomatoes and damage certain other plants. But, the conclusion presents a situation in which the action (usage of certain chemical) will be effective and not that the action overall effect is not +ve.