IMO (B). If the replacement of non-renewable resources by other non-renewable sources were possible, then the conclusion would fall apart. What is the OA?

The last sentence of the passage gives us the conclusion saying we should either do without non-renewable sources or switch to renewable resources.
Since the author believes that there are replacements of all non-renewable sources available assumption should be A.

winniethepooh wrote:The last sentence of the passage gives us the conclusion saying we should either do without non-renewable sources or switch to renewable resources.
Since the author believes that there are replacements of all non-renewable sources available assumption should be A.

I too initially thought that the last sentence is the conclusion, but the first sentence is it.

winniethepooh wrote:The last sentence of the passage gives us the conclusion saying we should either do without non-renewable sources or switch to renewable resources.
Since the author believes that there are replacements of all non-renewable sources available assumption should be A.

The last sentence is sub-conclusion and the first sentence is the main conclusion..
The argument is something like this:

P1: There is only so much metal ore available.
Sub-conclusion and this conclusion used as a premise of the first sentence (which is the main conclusion of the argument) - Ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place.
Conclusion: (Now since we do not have enough metal ore and we HAVE to do without or turn to renewable resources), Hence The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on
nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change.


Now the argument assumes that since we cannot replace the existing non renewable resources with any other non renewable resources, and since we have not much metal ore left, the pattern of the human consumption of resources.

That's what B states and feels the gap in the logic... I am sure, if you could have tried to locate the conclusion properly and try to prethink before going to the argument... you could have got this one !!

Negate B: we can replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources. If we can, then why to change the pattern of CURRENT consumption of resources ?? This is how the argument is weakened...

C talks about the future scenario in which the renewable resources cannot be exhausted by human consumption. The argument does not need to assume this as we are least bothered about what happens in the future.. The argument is only concerned with whether the current pattern of human consumption should change or not...

D: I guess this was one of the close choices that I considered...But after negation, the argument does not break... Consumption of nonrenewable resources will continue to increase in the near future.
If that's the case, this choice necessitates the change in the pattern of human consumption....The argument is not weakened..

E is not required for the argument to stand ..

IMO B
OA?

hoji wrote:Problems identifying the main conclusion....

IMO B

whats OA?

OA is B.