Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincin

Question

Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincing legislators to enact extensive environmental regulations. Yet, as environmentalists themselves not only admit but insist, the condition of the environment is worsening, not improving. Clearly, more environmental regulations are not the solution to the environment’s problems.

The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument

(A) attacks the environmentalists themselves instead of their positions
(B) presumes, without providing warrant, that only an absence of environmental regulations could prevent environmental degradation
(C) fails to consider the possibility that the condition of the environment would have worsened even more without environmental regulations
(D) fails to justify its presumption that reducing excessive regulations is more important than preserving the environment
(E) fails to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

answer C. 
this argument is a classic example of assuming that if the conclusion is negative, then it is bad as could be, and everything leading up to must have been bad. but it is very possible that things could have much worse if not for the efforts of environmentalists, and could have been much better if environmentalists' demands were met with more support.

prateekchugh · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(C)  Logical Flaw
When reading the argument in a Logical Flaw question, ask yourself: “Is there any possibility this author may have overlooked?”
In a rather pessimistic argument, this author concludes that more regulations on the environment will not solve environmental problems. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the condition of the environment is worsening, even after tougher regulations were enacted. Of course, that evidence doesn’t establish the author’s conclusion. Just because the environment has worsened under the regulations doesn’t mean that the regulations have done no good. Perhaps the environment would be in even worse shape without the regulations. That’s the possibility this author has failed to consider, which means that  (C)  is our winner.

(A)  is inaccurate. The author never makes a personal (ad hominem) attack on the environmentalists. This is a type of logical flaw, just not the one the author commits here.

(B)  is extreme. The author says that more regulations aren’t the solution, but that’s quite different from presuming that the environment can improve only if we get rid of regulations altogether.

(D)  seriously distorts the argument. The author never presumes that reducing regulations is more important than preserving the environment, just that it won’t on its own help preserve the environment.

(E)  The author doesn’t have to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents in order to make the argument because those views wouldn’t help make the argument any more persuasive.

ravigupta2912 · Answer

(A) attacks the environmentalists themselves instead of their positions -- Incorrect. It attacks the position of seeking more legislation.

(B) presumes, without providing warrant, that only an absence of environmental regulations could prevent environmental degradation -- It does not say that. It just says that "more environmental legislation" is not "helping improve the environment". A---> B does not necessarily imply B ----> A

(C) fails to consider the possibility that the condition of the environment would have worsened even more without environmental regulations -- Correct. Because if it did consider then it may have proved that legislation did help.

(D) fails to justify its presumption that reducing excessive regulations is more important than preserving the environment -- Close contender. But the phrase in the end was really the bummer "Preserving the environment". Eliminate.

(E) fails to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents -- Eliminate. Out of scope.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincin

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

Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincin

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