sandesh87
the passage can be summarised as follows:
Community owned->always less maintained.
Overuse common property-->benefir accrue to individual-->cost spread to all.
However lakes in better condition than private wells..
so we can say that if public property and overused then it will be in bad condition as it will be less maintained. so we have to know whether the community /public property is overused ?
the study which will make this clear is E
Evaluate Argument type questions such as these ones can be efficiently solved in the following way:
Answer yes to the given option and see whether the argument is strengthened or weakened.
Then answer no to the option and see whether the argument is strengthened or weakened.
If answering yes and no reverses the strengthening / weakening of the argument, then this option is the correct one.
Once you check this technique with option E, you would realize that this option does not matter in evaluation.
Option C:
Answer yes - wells and lakes were of comparable quality before use. Now the passage states that the lakes are in better condition after use. This implies that Gracie's theory is incorrect: a weakening statement.
Answer no - wells and lakes were not of comparable quality. May be the lakes already had better quality water. In this case it cannot be proved that usage has caused the well water's condition to deteriorate more than the lake water's condition. This does not imply that Gracie's theory is incorrect (or correct): neither a weakening nor a strengthening statement.
Thus strictly speaking, even option C is not the best of the ideal answers.
However at least answering yes helps us evaluate Gracie's theory - in absence of any better option, C has to be selected.