Critical Reasoning

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?
(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and the general public.
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

OA :A
My take is E.
Because if some of the species are endagered due to this new proposal to give the parks to pvt groups.

I eliminated A because, " those who would join pvt grps and exploit the power.....can as well join govt agencies and do so"

Please discuss....

thanks!!

IMO: A


The point of argument here to conserve the resources. Since government cannot do that it is suggested to handover the same to private enterprise so that these natural resources can be preserved. But if people who want to exploit these resources somehow take leadership of these resources(thru private enterprise and abolish all restrictions place on the usage of these resources) than there is no point handing over park system to the private enter prise.

I see that both A and E are weakening the conclusion...what makes A and not E a better answer ??

Statement E works in favour of the argument. So no matter how hard private enterprises try some species still die out. This can point that those species dies out anyway even with goverment looking after the park system so better handover the park system to private atleast financial resources will be there.

E is ruled due to narrow scope.
Endagering one species doesn't make them bad at conservation.
Even it can happen if its in govt hands.

Moreover, there is a better option available in A, which says that if people with wrong intentions have got access to such pvt enterprise, then this whole conservation thot is under jeopardy.

Hence, A

I would go with option A as the correct option