In A we have to assume that the investments in education and job training result in economic growth. Judging this logic the correct answer can also sound like:

A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in searching alien civilizations
_________________

Okay, let's take this baby down. Many of the responses in this forum focus on isolated pieces of this question, but I think it might be beneficial to do a full analysis, focusing on the critical-thinking strategies that unlock problems like these. As you study for the GMAT, it is very beneficial to identify patterns and strategies useful for multiple questions, not just one. Here is the full "GMAT Jujitsu" for this question:

Our first item of business is to recognize the problem type. Fill-in-the-blank Critical Reasoning questions are notorious for obscuring what the question is asking. If you just look at the question stem, you might erroneously that this is an Inference question type, because of the phrase "most logically completes the argument." However, look at the structure of the argument. Right before the blank, the problem uses the word "since." "Since" is what I call in my classes a "Conclusion Conjunction." While it precedes a fact, that fact is directly attached to the conclusion. (For example, if the problem says, "X, since Y", then X is the conclusion. If the problem says, "Since X, Y", then Y is the conclusion. Thus, in this question, the answer choices are additional facts, supporting a conclusion up in the stimulus. The conclusion is "This fact [i.e., that fact that states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth] does not show that environmental regulations promote growth." The correct answer would undermine the idea that environmental regulations promote growth. You could think of this as a "Weaken" question.

There is a large logical gap here, related to the fallacy "Correlation is Not Causation." Even though the problem says that states with the strictest environmental regulations have the highest growth, we don't know if the environmental regulations caused the growth. (For example, what if a third factor -- such as an abundance of natural resources -- causes both growth and environmental regulations to happen? What if the causal relationship goes the opposite direction -- that high growth causes states to enact environmental regulations? There is no way to tell given the limited facts in the question!) The GMAT is hoping that, because it mentioned growth and environmental regulations in close proximity that you make the assumption they are related. If we can find an answer that shows growth might be caused by something else, we have our answer.

Answer choice “A” states that states with strict environmental regulations share another attribute: they invest the most in education and job training. Now, at first glance, this is a weak sauce answer. It never states that education and job training cause high growth. We have to insert in extra information in order to show that this new factor could truly prove the real causal link. However -- and this is crucial for those of you taking the GMAT -- "Strengthen" and "Weaken" questions on the GMAT aren't "Prove" or "Annihilate the Logic" questions. Notice the way the question is worded: it asks for the evidence that "most" logically completes the argument. Answer choice “A” does introduce other possible factors that could be connected to high growth. If all of the other answer choices fail to undermine the assumed causal link between regulations and growth, then this answer -- as weak as it is -- still "most" logically completes the argument. If this question showed up on my GMAT, I would reserve judgement on “A” until I looked at the other answer choices.

Answer choice “B” does the opposite of what we want, by reinforcing the assumed link between regulations and growth. If (1) moderate environmental regulations are correlated with higher growth than less-strict regulations are and (2) strict regulations are correlated with highest growth, the pattern seems clear. But we don't want to prove the pattern! We are trying to find an answer this shows the assumed link isn't necessarily there. “B” can be quickly eliminated.

Answer choice “C” is a beautifully-crafted trap. It says that "many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations." (In other words, it sounds like the states are trying to fix their poor growth by reducing environmental regulations.) This seems to reinforce the idea of a linear relationship between growth and regulations. However, answer choice “C” suffers from the same problem that the original argument does: we assume that the states are "considering" weakening their environmental regulations BECAUSE they are trying to fix poor growth. But we don't know that. Remember: "Correlation is Not Causation." The states could be considering reducing environmental regulations for many reasons. Plus, we are looking for an answer that undermines the hypothesis that regulations "promote" growth. We know nothing about what would happen if we "reduced" regulations. You can't assume a linear relationship. (To give a parallel example, you could argue that eating ice cream all day could make you fat, but that doesn't necessarily mean that eliminating ice cream from your diet will make you skinny! Studies have shown that reducing calories can actually cause your body to go into starvation mode and try to build up emergency fat reserves.) “C” doesn't truly undermine the idea that strict regulations can promote economic growth.

Answer choice “D” also reinforces that assumed causal link. Get rid of it!

Answer choice “E” is completely irrelevant to the logical gap. Just because "states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth," doesn't mean that stricter regulations couldn't promote even stronger growth. “E” doesn't undermine the assumed causal link. We can quickly eliminate it.

In the end, only one answer choice even gets us close to undermining the assumed causal link between environmental regulations and economic growth. Two answer choices ("B" and "D") do the exact opposite of what we want, strengthening the possibility of a causal link. Two answer choices ("C" and "E") don't mind the logical gap. These fail to come up with an alternative explanation for why states experience economic growth. Only one answer is left over. And it is total weak sauce. This is what I call in my classes a "Directional Nudge." With Strengthen and Weaken questions, test takers often look for an answer so perfect that Aristotle himself rises from the grave and gives them a round of applause. But that approach is a deliberate trap in many GMAT questions. Don't fall for it. Notice even in the question stem that it reads, "most logically completes". You just need the answer choice that does it best. And "A" is the only one that gets close.
_________________

This is an strengthen question because the conclusion "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth" is in the stimulus. After all, the setup of "which of the following, if true" or of "however, since ______" indicate new information can be provided.

A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training This answer choice directly address the counterpoint, for the cause of job growth promotes growth more than the environmental regulations.

B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations Opposite answer - This statement actually supports the counterpoint.

C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations Shell game - this leads to a different conclusion - i.e. therefore, not all states consider environment regulations as a way to increase job growth. Besides, this statement is neutral - neither strengthen or weakens the conclusion.

D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth Opposite answer - This supports the counterpoint.

E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth Opposite answer - This supports the counterpoint.

A is actually what I had picked.

Stem starts off by saying that theory is that strict regulations = less growth.

Then it says that places with highest growth have the strictest regulations. Undermines the first premise.

Last sentence, author seems to think that there is something else causing the situation in sentence two, and so we need to look for an alternate explanation as to to why strict regulations = high growth.

A gives that

I think A is the answer because there must be fact other than environmental regulations that promote growth i.e higher education can lead to produce chips .

Assume producing copper will yield 1$ producing wire will yield $10 producing micro chip from same material will yield $100. Which is more enviromental consuming of course producing copper.

there are 4 posts for this question but none explains the reason for eliminating option E..

Can somebody help??

Fact1- imposing environmental restrictions reduces economic growth
Fact-2- states with highest economic growth have strictest env. restrictions
so fact-2 undermines fact1
now the last part of argument says "This fact(fact2) does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since fact3"

so fact2 and fact3 taken together should be able to prove that environmental regulations does not promote growth
E) says " weak env. regulations => some growth"
fact2 says "strict env. regulations => highest growth"
both taken together shows that env. regulations and growth are related.
so this can be ruled out

A) is the answer as explained by defenestrate
it introduces a new element which could be a probable reason for growth in the states with strictest regulations and thus shows env. regulations has nothing to do with growth

To fully complete the sentence, we need to show that the 'strict environmental restrictions' are not a reason for high economic growth.

E says that countries with weak environmental restrictions have also had at least some growth. Now does that explain how A has had high growth? Or can it explain how 'strict environmental restrictions' are not the reason for A's economic growth? Certainly not. One might think that it is sufficient to cast a suspicion on our premise. But that pales in comparison to the choices that we are provided with.

Take A, it clarifies that investment in education and job training are the reason for A's higher growth. That is what we are looking for.

Just to be sure, the OA is A and this question is part of GMATPrepExam Pack 1 and is an official question.

Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.

So as per the passage the strict Regulation -> More growth is observed but we need to say why the direct correlation doesn't exist.

A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training - Correct as there is no direct correlation. This is the best answer and not a perfect as we need assume some things

B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations
This option says there is a direct correlation between strict regulation and growth.

C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations
There is a direct correlation and that is the reason why many states are contemplating weakening their environmental regulations

D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth
Direct correlation

E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth
Even if we remove the strong environmental regulations, there is some growth. There is also a direct correlation as weak environmental regulation -> No strong growth.
_________________

My 2 cents.
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth.
General Fact-1: Strict/High ER --> Low EG [C&E]

This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth.
Contradicting Fact-2: Strictest ER -- Highest EG [mentions that 2 r present together]

This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.
Conclusion: SER !-> HEG. Why??
We can answer that by identifying an alternate factor that affect EG , during the strict ER period. Just bec 2 events r present doesn't mean that they r related.

A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training>> Correct, HEG might be the result of investment in education(HIE).
B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations [In a way strengthen the contradicting fact]
C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations. [Trying to reverse the relationship. Helps us little in identifying what we r looking for.]
D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth [opposite of wht we r looking for]
E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth [opposite of wht we r looking for]

Can someone review and confirm if i m correct in my reasoning. Also m i right in my assumption that introducing an indirect relationship between SER and HEG would strengthen the conclusion?

Dear Student,

Thank you for your post.

You are correct in your overall understanding of the passage. However, I would not call the hypothesis a general fact. The fact that this hypothesis exists is definitely a fact. I hope you understand the difference between the two.

You are quite close to the correct answer in your pre-thinking. What you are trying to say, I hope, is that just because there is a correlation between the two (they co-exist) doesn't mean that there is a cause and effect relationship between them as well. This understanding is correct to logically complete the given argument.

Regards,

Neeti.
_________________

The original passage discusses the format of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which a mere correlation of two events falsely attempts to guarantee causation.
This fallacy states that if x and y happened at the same time, then x must have caused y. However, there could be other possible, alternative causes. These causes could be best summarized in these 4 points:
1- x causes y
2- y causes x
3- a third, unrelated factor z is the cause
4- the correlation between x and y is just a coincidence.

If you plug in the variables of the argument, you get these 4 possible explanations:
1- environmental regulations cause economic growth
2- economic growth causes environmental regulations
3- z (in this case, education and job training) causes economic growth
4- the correlation between environmental regulations and economic growth is just a coincidence.

The argument states that point 1 cannot be the explanation and then asks you to strengthen this claim.
Correct answer choice A states that point 3 is the case, thereby strengthening the claim that point 1 is not true.


Hopefully you can apply this framework to other GMAT CR questions. Kudos if you liked it!

This is a frequently used GMAT logic structure.

X and Y happen together.
It cannot be concluded that X causes Y, because Z could have caused Y.

Here, strict environmental regulations (X) and high economic growth (Y) happen together. However we cannot conclude X causes Y because something else, investment in education and job training (Z), may have caused Y.

The correct answer would support the statement X does not cause Y - it would show that X and Y does not have positive correlation. Option E states that with less X at least some Y was achieved. This in a way shows that X has some positive correlation to Y. If those countries (mentioned in option E) had higher environmental regulations, they might have high growth. Hence E is not the correct answer.

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.

Hypothesis : strict environmental regulations >> reduced economic growth
Fact : strictest environmental regulations >> highest economic growth

We need to find a reason which will help to show that environmental regulations DO NOT promote growth (usage of "however")
in other words , we need to show that there is no relation between environmental regulations & economic growth

All other options suggest some relation between environmental regulations & economic growth except (A).

Ans : A

Ok so can someone explain this:

When the sentence uses the phrase "however" it is about to present a counter point to whatever came before it. However is used as a point of transition to say something which is opposite to what has been stated earlier. Ex:
"John likes Marry, however, Marry likes Tom".

So in the last sentence it says "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ____"
Shouldn't the filler oppose whatever comes before the word "however"?

So the filler should provide evidence that environmental regulations promote growth.

I picked B. I was stuck between D and B because of this.

Hi Nijat12,

"However" in this case, means because. You are right, however, as the counterpoint you alluded to was already demontrated, i.e This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth.
Thus the filler should not provide evidence why stricter regulations promote growth, but instead an alternate reason why it does. Option A provides this- education and training.

Now, this is a salient point in GMAT. Most passages seem to be called from real world articles/researches. Thus a cursory familiarity with current affairs will often corroborate answers. A great example here is Norway countries which fit this profile of strict environmental regulation and high economic growth probably because it has invested in training and education of its citizens. On the other hand, are developing/emerging economies that are growing by having lax environmental regulations.

To avoid the risk of going too far out scope.. option A clears the paradox.

Best,

A is not a perfectly clear answer but what A is basically stating is that "economic growth" in the states with the "strictest environment regulations" is not higher because those states are "stricter" but because of some other condition that already exists. The economic growth is not attributable to the "strictness" of the states, it is instead attributable to some other factor, "investment in education and job training."

A

C is a very well crafted wrong answer choice. It is a trap for those who thought that the 1st line of the argument is the conclusion. Choice C supports strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth and not environmental regulations does not promote growth. There is a subtle difference between the two.
Also, Many states are considering ..here many could mean 3 or 4 out of 100 states. Such states may be wrong in their belief. This does not give any fact that we could use to determine the relationship between environmental regulations and growth.