Critical Reasoning

Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.


13. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.



Can someone please explain to me the conclusion of this passage and how the oa weakens it. Its one of the questions from 1000 cr.

thanks

OA: c

tycoon_316 wrote:Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.


13. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.



Can someone please explain to me the conclusion of this passage and how the oa weakens it. Its one of the questions from 1000 cr.

thanks

OA: c

Conclusion is -> it is due to decline in business rather than the pollution Act, that pollution has decreased.

Evidence 1-> Pollution decreased in 10 years
Evidence 2-> 10% business closed and 12% job loss

If you see, we have to find the assumption, and then refute it..for weaken questions...

Assumption can be found out ->
1) either by finding gap b/w conclusion and evidence OR
2) between the evidences...

here, there is a gap b/w evidence 1 and 2....that is...Assumption ->

10 % business closed ...caused the pollution, and because they were closed..pollution decreased...

SO, if a choice says, that the business that were closed didn't do much pollution....it weakens the conclusion...

Hence , C.

nitin86 wrote:

tycoon_316 wrote:Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.


13. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.



Can someone please explain to me the conclusion of this passage and how the oa weakens it. Its one of the questions from 1000 cr.

thanks

OA: c

Conclusion is -> it is due to decline in business rather than the pollution Act, that pollution has decreased.

Evidence 1-> Pollution decreased in 10 years
Evidence 2-> 10% business closed and 12% job loss

If you see, we have to find the assumption, and then refute it..for weaken questions...

Assumption can be found out ->
1) either by finding gap b/w conclusion and evidence OR
2) between the evidences...

here, there is a gap b/w evidence 1 and 2....that is...Assumption ->

10 % business closed ...caused the pollution, and because they were closed..pollution decreased...

SO, if a choice says, that the business that were closed didn't do much pollution....it weakens the conclusion...

Hence , C.

Thanks nitin
I had an alternative view

Main conclusion : ( clean air act) This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively

premise :Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent.

Counter Premise:However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline

Conclusion for counter premise :It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.


Option C states that only 5 percent of the industries that ceased were air polluting industries rest were non air polluting ( did not come under the clean air act ), which refutes the fact that the clean air act has worked effectively in reducing pollution.

Is this a correct way of analysing this argument?

IMO C

I would prefer D to C

Can anyone explain why C and not D ?

In a way 'D' strengthens the argument.

D strengthens the argument; if many companies left the state, this would explain the 10% company decline and decline in pollution.

I believe the answer should be C

a. It is not an assumption made in the passage, rather a conclusion driven from the passage.
b. It is something out of context of the passage and doesn't deal with the decline of industrial pollutants.
c. This could be an assumption made in the passage as the results could only be derived by making this assumption.
d. Out of context of the passage and the author didn't compare decline of industrial pollutants among various cities.
e. Passage doesn't approve of this statement.
Hence, c is the answer.