Critical Reasoning

Political Analyst: After the Soviet Union collapsed, some hoped that freedom would encourage Russians to multiply, but as a result of dislocation and insecurity, the Russian population continues to dwindle at the rate of 700,000 a year. The government proposes to address the problem with a wide range of financial incentives, along with investments in improved health care, road safety and the like. These are positive measures, but they have been tried before, to little avail. A better plan to reverse the population decline is to improve the country's governance in both the public and the private sphere. If a greater part of the population participated in important decisions and shared in the country's wealth, then larger families would result. In addition, if corruption and greed among the elite were curbed, public health would improve and average life expectancy would increase.
The two boldfaced statements serve what function in the argument above?

The first is the main point of the analyst's argument; the second is a premise that supports the the first.
The first is a premise that undermines an alternative to the analyst's proposal; the second is a premise that supports the analyst's main claim.
The first is a premise that contradicts the main point made by the analyst; the second is the main point of the argument.
The first is a premise that supports a proposal; the second is that proposal.
The first is a conclusion that the argument endorses; the second is a premise that opposes that conclusion.

is it B?

IMO D.

Second part is a proposal, what Soviet Union should do if they want to reverse the population decline.

First part shows that what is being done by the government has never produced expected results in the past. So basically the first part advocates for a new approach, which is proposed in the second part.

OA??

The analyst recounts a proposal by the Russian government to increase the Russian population. The analyst then dismisses that proposal and makes a counterproposal that he or she then supports with hypothetical scenarios. The claim that the counterproposal (to try good governance) is preferable is the conclusion of the argument.

(A) This choice is incorrect. The first boldface is a fact that indicates the government plan has failed before; it is not the conclusion of the argument. However, the second is a premise in support of the argument’s proposal.

(B) CORRECT. The first is the fact that the government plan has "been tried before, to no avail," a fact that undermines the alternative proposal made by the government. The author's proposal is to improve the country's governance, and the second boldface supports that plan by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.

(C) The first does not contradict the argument’s conclusion that improved governance will reverse the decline in population. Rather, it undermines the other proposal presented by the government, which is a claim that the argument does not support. The second is not the argument’s main point, but an assertion that supports the conclusion of the argument by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.

(D) The first is a premise that the government plan has "been tried before, to an avail," which weighs against the preceding proposal. The second is not the proposal that the first directly supports, but an assertion that supports the conclusion of the argument by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.

(E) The first is not a conclusion at all, rather a factual premise that these measures "have been tried before, to little avail." The second boldface does not oppose the first boldface, rather it is an assertion that supports the conclusion of the argument by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.

IMO B

Political Analyst: After the Soviet Union collapsed, some hoped that freedom would encourage Russians to multiply, but as a result of dislocation and insecurity, the Russian population continues to dwindle at the rate of 700,000 a year. The government proposes to address the problem with a wide range of financial incentives, along with investments in improved health care, road safety and the like. <- ALTERNATIVE WHICH CAN COUNTER MAIN CONCLUSION

These are positive measures, but they have been tried before, to little avail. <- Author TRYING TO WEAKEN THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH CAN COUNTER HIS MAIN CONCLUSION

A better plan to reverse the population decline is to improve the country's governance in both the public and the private sphere. MAIN CONCLUSION

If a greater part of the population participated in important decisions and shared in the country's wealth, then larger families would result.<- IN SUPPORT OF AUTHOR"S MAIN CONCLUSION

In addition, if corruption and greed among the elite were curbed, public health would improve and average life expectancy would increase.

IMO B as well

In B

First is not an alternative to analyst's proposal, but to government's.

I think both are different.

IMO D

IMO D.
B cant be the answer since there is no analyst's proposal. The proposal is made by government.

IMO its B.