- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 am
#36274
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A)
The columnist points out that much of Northern America and Western Europe is more heavily
forested, has less acid rain, and has better air quality now than 50 years ago, and grants that the
improvement may be largely due to policies advocated by environmentalists. The columnist then
concludes that the improvement lends support to people who argue that excessive restriction of the
exploitation of resources may make it economically diffi cult to pay for the future protection of the
environment. In layman’s terms, the environment is better, but even though that may be because of
pro-environment policies, if we don’t use our natural resources then we may not have enough money
in the future to continue to apply pro-environment policies.
Remember that in any argument your primary task is to identify the conclusion and supporting
premises, and assess the validity of the argument. If you sensed any holes in the argument (and there
are holes, such as that 50 years over a limited area is not necessarily enough of a sample to prove the
claims, or that the improvement may not have necessarily have come from the policies) remember
that in a Strengthen question you can look for an answer that eliminates such a gap in logic.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If nations did not sustain their wealth by
using their natural resources, then the idea that overly protecting their resources would lead to a
lack of wealth would be false. Thus, this answer supports the claim that restricting the use of natural
resources may diminish the wealth necessary to sustain the pro-environment policies.
Answer choice (B): Technology is extraneous to the issues dealt with in the stimulus, so this choice
is irrelevant and incorrect.
Answer choice (C): Regardless of the cause of the majority of ecological disasters, humans can
still be the cause of this particular disaster. Thus, this answer choice does not affect the issue of
environmental policy.
Answer choice (D): This was the most popular incorrect answer. This answer dwells on what would
have occurred in the past had a different approach been used whereas the argument indicates that
fi nances may dictate a certain course of action in the future. Aside from the fact that what would
have occurred in the past does not mean the same would occur in the future, this answer does not
strengthen the reasoning because it is not relevant to the argument that excessively strict policies may
result in insuffi cient funds to sustain those policies.
Some students see this answer as strengthening the idea that the policies of the environmentalists
have resulted in the environmental improvement, but the author already conceded that point in the
argument so it needed no further support.
Answer choice (E): This choice suggests that a concern for the environment causes an increase in
wealth. If this is the case, then the restrictive environmental policies are benefi cial, and it may be
that they do not diminish the nation’s wealth. Thus, this answer choice weakens the reasoning in the
stimulus.
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A)
The columnist points out that much of Northern America and Western Europe is more heavily
forested, has less acid rain, and has better air quality now than 50 years ago, and grants that the
improvement may be largely due to policies advocated by environmentalists. The columnist then
concludes that the improvement lends support to people who argue that excessive restriction of the
exploitation of resources may make it economically diffi cult to pay for the future protection of the
environment. In layman’s terms, the environment is better, but even though that may be because of
pro-environment policies, if we don’t use our natural resources then we may not have enough money
in the future to continue to apply pro-environment policies.
Remember that in any argument your primary task is to identify the conclusion and supporting
premises, and assess the validity of the argument. If you sensed any holes in the argument (and there
are holes, such as that 50 years over a limited area is not necessarily enough of a sample to prove the
claims, or that the improvement may not have necessarily have come from the policies) remember
that in a Strengthen question you can look for an answer that eliminates such a gap in logic.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If nations did not sustain their wealth by
using their natural resources, then the idea that overly protecting their resources would lead to a
lack of wealth would be false. Thus, this answer supports the claim that restricting the use of natural
resources may diminish the wealth necessary to sustain the pro-environment policies.
Answer choice (B): Technology is extraneous to the issues dealt with in the stimulus, so this choice
is irrelevant and incorrect.
Answer choice (C): Regardless of the cause of the majority of ecological disasters, humans can
still be the cause of this particular disaster. Thus, this answer choice does not affect the issue of
environmental policy.
Answer choice (D): This was the most popular incorrect answer. This answer dwells on what would
have occurred in the past had a different approach been used whereas the argument indicates that
fi nances may dictate a certain course of action in the future. Aside from the fact that what would
have occurred in the past does not mean the same would occur in the future, this answer does not
strengthen the reasoning because it is not relevant to the argument that excessively strict policies may
result in insuffi cient funds to sustain those policies.
Some students see this answer as strengthening the idea that the policies of the environmentalists
have resulted in the environmental improvement, but the author already conceded that point in the
argument so it needed no further support.
Answer choice (E): This choice suggests that a concern for the environment causes an increase in
wealth. If this is the case, then the restrictive environmental policies are benefi cial, and it may be
that they do not diminish the nation’s wealth. Thus, this answer choice weakens the reasoning in the
stimulus.
