Critical Reasoning

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing. As a result, few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement.
(B) No environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible.
(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing.
(D) Most environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems.
(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits

i like A


A. non govt environmental mismgmt can be solved only by major changes in consumer habits. if some serious ecological problems can be solved without major changes in consumer habits, they must not be non-govt mismanagment=>govt mismanagement

B. economic feasibility is out of scope

C. doesnt affect the argument

D. out of scope

E. we do not know if a lot/few can be solved by major changes in consumer habits

scoobydooby wrote:i like A
A. non govt environmental mismgmt can be solved only by major changes in consumer habits. if some serious ecological problems can be solved without major changes in consumer habits, they must not be non-govt mismanagment=>govt mismanagement
B. economic feasibility is out of scope
C. doesnt affect the argument
D. out of scope
E. we do not know if a lot/few can be solved by major changes in consumer habits

At last!! An answer accompanied by a full explanation. Thanks. Any other bets? I'll disclose the OA a bit later.

.

.. let me also try with explanation...

IMO C


author argues that "result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing."

ONLY lie in changes ... changes can ONLY happen
wat if major changes in habits cannot be made enticing...?? the argument will fall apart...

hope it helps

I feel D is correct...

pratyush.mathur wrote:I feel D is correct...

why??

.

avenus wrote:The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. But major changes in consumer habits will occur only if such changes are economically enticing. As a result, few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement.
(B) No environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible.
(C) Major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing.
(D) Most environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement are major ecological problems.
(E) Few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits

Thanks for posting few nice questions avenus
I too feel D is correct. Conclusion says that few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing. That means most of the serious ecological problems will not be solved. And the premise says that solution to any env problem that is not the result of governmnet management is blah blah blah..so what kind of problems are we talking about? The problems which are not caused by government management, and these are the serious ecological problems which can be solved if consumer changes are economically enticing.

IMO, [spoiler]it's between C and D. But in the end, I think C would prevail.

A) is not implied anywhere.
B) is extreme and not implied.
D) The word 'most' throws me off here.
E) This goes against the conclusion and stated premises, so there's no way that this answer is right.[/spoiler]

scoobydooby wrote:i like A
A. non govt environmental mismgmt can be solved only by major changes in consumer habits. if some serious ecological problems can be solved without major changes in consumer habits, they must not be non-govt mismanagment=>govt mismanagement
B. economic feasibility is out of scope
C. doesnt affect the argument
D. out of scope
E. we do not know if a lot/few can be solved by major changes in consumer habits

well done. OA is A

choice A should be the correct choice