oDanaJ wrote:Received a PM.
The reasoning goes as follows:
- there have been notable improvements in the quality of the environment
- this supports the idea that you still need to have some economical activity to support the costs associated with environmental improvements
The conclusion here is that wealth generated by the use of resources can be used for improving the environment.
A is spot on. If the wealth of a nation is generated by the use of its resources, then we actually do need to use these resources or else we can't pay for the environmental improvements.
B may be true, but there's no mentioning of the costs. What if technology is not that expensive (I know it sounds silly, but you need to take into account only what's given and avoid making assumptions)? Besides, social programs do not necessarily mean environmental programs.
C - could be true, but does not affect the argument of wealth and environmental improvements.
D - could be true, but does not reference the conclusion, i.e. no mentioning of wealth.
E - this is actually the "reverse argument" option. This option states that concerns for the environment lead to greater wealth. The conclusion, however, has it the other way around. So this option would weaken the argument because it says that the reasoning is flawed (i.e. backwards).
I have a doubt. Option A states that nation sustains it's wealth through the resources but the main statement never talks about the nation, it says environmentalists won't be able to generate wealth to implement the policies. How do you relate the two?
That's why I chose D.
