Environmentalist vs business person ! CR

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:53 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

Environmentalist vs business person ! CR

by ankit0411 » Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:27 pm
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.
Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in
the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition,
the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all
Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the
business spokesperson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

I thought the answer would be B but OA is A.

Can anyone please explain ?


Thanks,
Ankit
Don't predict future , create it !
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pm
Thanked: 99 times
Followed by:21 members

by vk_vinayak » Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:46 am
ankit0411 wrote:Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.
Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in
the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition,
the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all
Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the
business spokesperson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

I thought the answer would be B but OA is A.

Can anyone please explain ?


Thanks,
Ankit
A should be the answer. Environmentalist (E'list) seeks ban on snowmobiling because it creates high air pollution. Businessman (B-man) says that Economy matters more than pollution.

So, to counter B-man's argument, E'list must show that pollution is somehow (negatively) affecting the economy. Which is exactly what A does.

Option B doesn't produce much of an counter-argument. What matters to B-man is that economy shouldn't be affected and more people should turn up for Snowmobiling. It doesn't matter if *few* of them are not from out of town.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)