OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The government is attempting to limit the release of carcinogens by chemical plants, but it is permitting the chemical industry itself to monitor the plan’s implementation. The author believes this to be an unacceptable proposal, since the past behavior of certain chemical companies indicates that they will increase their emissions of toxic carcinogens.

(A) The author states only that certain chemical companies cannot be trusted; saying that no company can be trusted is too extreme.

(B) The argument states that the chemical industry does release certain carcinogens but does not suggest that it releases the majority of carcinogens.

(C) CORRECT. This statement properly identifies the author’s argument that the net result of the plan will be an increase of toxic carcinogens into the air.

(D) The argument is about a certain proposal in a specific industry; it is too far reaching to argue that the author believes the government should always monitor all of its proposals.

(E) This is not the point of the argument. Moreover, it is never suggested that these chemicals are more hazardous than other cancer-causing chemicals.
_________________

Hi mun

let me say some thoughts about this question to help you.

1) this is not an assumtpion question, because based on two things (the word that at the and of the question stem ND the mood of the question) this is NOT an assumption question but rather an INFERENCE or MUST BE TRUE question.

2) I suggest you to to go to this topic and go step-by-step throughout the post to improve you Cr skills

critical-reasoning-megathread-145178.html

best-critical-reasoning-shortcuts-notes-tips-91280.html

This is because if on one hand is useful to post here you questions (we are happy to help you) on the other hand if you do not take control, if you do not have the tools to crack the questions (i. e. study a lot) you do not have a clear compass about: where you go, how attack the question, an efficient strategy to use, and so on....I hope you know what I mean

Now back to the question


Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants.

Ok here we have a fact that the governement wants to make effective

The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal.

here we have the purpose of the proposal and the fact that the industry itself should control the implementation of a plan

If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.

basically here is stated this: IF the industry control all the situation we will not have benefits; the opposite: we will have worst effects. So from this we can deduce that the industry is not able to do nothing by itself(in a few words)

The author is arguing that ____.

(INFERNCE)

(A)no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal

too extreme as answer and we are not completely sure of this

(B)the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air

About this statistic we haven't enough indformation

(C)allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence

This is what, precisely, I said in the stimulus. The industry, if it pursues the implementation of the proposal , then the same is not able to do nothing without the engagement of the gov. perfect. correct

(D)to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals

Is not what we care about. the goverment

(E)benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals

The chemicals are not our concern

C is indeed the correct answer

Hope this helps you to comprehend better the whole situation
_________________

I was tied b/w option C & D.
Option C states the event of "intent going opposite" WILL happen instead of "could" happen. It ignores the if-then condition(in stimulus) and jumps to "then" part.

So why C could be correct?

If the author goes in the similar sense then option D should also be correct.

Can anyone help by explaining this question?

First of all, this is a CR question not an SC. (Just kidding)

You must flow with the stem while reading the options. Here the author is ARGUING, arguing what? Something which is given in the stem, what is given in the stem? not option D(to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals) but our answer i.e. option C (allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence) by stating that "If the past actions of certain polluters in the
chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air"

Hope this helps !

_________________

As the question stem says, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens, when earlier it says that the purpose of the proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. So C is the correct answer, since the stem is arguing that the proposal will achieve the opposite of its purpose.

As for the other answer choices, the argument is about the effectiveness of the clean air proposal, so B and E are not right. Nor is the argument about what proportion of chemical companies will comply with the proposal, so A is not right. And the argument is specifically about self-monitoring among chemical plant polluters, and not about self-monitoring in general, so D is not right.
_________________

et, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.

The author is arguing that ____.

A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal
b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air
c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence

My contention - "the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation" - how did the self monitoring element of C come into play here? The very fact that govt will release something - how does that imply self monitoring on the part of the industry?
Will need some clarity on the wording. Thank you!

The chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation basically means the chemical industry is responsible for taking care of the implementation to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens.

The government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens by introducing a policy but the implementation of the policy is to be monitored by the very companies that produce these harmful chemicals. Hence, self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence.

Hope it's clear