Critical Reasoning

Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.

The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?

1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion
2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.
3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.
4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.
5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.

[spoiler]OA is between D and E.
Provide your reasoning to choose one and to discard other.
Source : Princeton [/spoiler]

Please bold the Bolded portions Buddy!!

Conclusion - if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.

"Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental protection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability" - The first boldfaced sentence supports the conclusion.

"XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive." - The second boldfaced sentence is an example that supports the first boldfaced sentence.

So Pick E.

A incorrectly says that the first boldfaced sentence is a conclusion.

B says that the falsity of the example (second boldfaced sentence) would disprove the first boldfaced sentence. This is wrong because the first boldfaced sentence already says that few businesses do voluntarily implement environmental protection measures.

C says that the second boldfaced sentence is a counter evidence of the first one. But in fact the second boldfaced sentence supports the first one.

D says that there is no example given to support the first boldfaced sentence. But actually the second boldfaced sentence is an example of the first boldfaced sentence.

Hope that helps..

Thanks Jadeja.

I selected D over E with following reasoning.

Premise --> Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental protection measures ..

Given Example --> XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters ...

The given example doesn't support the premise.
Had the example been like :

Modified Example --> Only XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years installed smokestack filters

then It would have supported the premise.

So I discarded D .

imo - E .... as stated by hardk

I'll go with E.

hi hardik,

can you pl. elaborate how do we discard B ? If we falsify the e,g it would disprove the first......that seems to be right, doesn't it?.......

ansumania wrote:hi hardik,

can you pl. elaborate how do we discard B ? If we falsify the e,g it would disprove the first......that seems to be right, doesn't it?.......

Lets say the second boldfaced sentence is false. So that means that XYZ Corporation has voluntarily agreed to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory.

Notice, first boldfaced sentence says that there are some businesses(although just few in numbers) that voluntarily implement environmental protection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability.

It may be possible that XYZ Corporation is one of those businesses that voluntarily implement environmental protection measures. But it doesn't mean that majority of the businesses voluntarily implement environmental protection measures. So the falsity of second boldfaced sentence doesn't disprove the first boldfaced sentence.

Hope that helps..

I agree with paes.... D is better.

Premise 1: Few businesses go beyond for environment
Sub Concl/Premise 2: Vast majority find it prohibitive to implement these measures
Premise 3: Example to support Premise 2
Concl: If beneficial to society, do not expect businesses to go beyond for environment, regulate!!!

I do not see Premise 3/example support Premise1/first bold...