Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided

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

A) "No chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal."
- This option makes a broad assertion about the trustworthiness of all chemical companies. While it suggests skepticism about chemical companies, it doesn't specifically address the author's argument that self-monitoring by the chemical industry will lead to an increase in carcinogens released into the air.

B) "The chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air."
- This option provides information about the responsibility of the chemical industry for releasing carcinogens. However, it does not directly address the author's argument about the consequences of self-monitoring or the effectiveness of the new clean air proposal.

C) "Allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence."
- This option directly aligns with the author's argument. The author is contending that self-monitoring by the chemical industry (as allowed in the new clean air proposal) will have the opposite effect of reducing carcinogens in the air, potentially leading to an increase. This choice accurately reflects the author's position.

D) "To ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals."
- This option suggests a general principle about government monitoring but does not specifically address the author's argument regarding the self-monitoring by the chemical industry in the context of the clean air proposal.

E) "Benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals."
- This option provides information about the hazardous nature of benzene and formaldehyde but does not directly relate to the author's argument about the effectiveness of the clean air proposal or the impact of self-monitoring by the chemical industry.

Option (C) is the best choice as it directly reflects the author's argument, stating that allowing self-monitoring by the chemical industry will result in the opposite of the clean air proposal's intended consequence. This aligns with the author's position that the proposal will lead to an increase in carcinogens released into the air.