Critical Reasoning

Which of the following best completes the passage below?
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that ___________.

(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

would go for B

A. implementation is out of scope.

B. correct. negate: if subtances subjected to control cannot cause damage, then the restrictions must be uncalled for/excessive.

C. doesnt affect argument.

D. irrelevant. only the threat to environment/potentiality is discussed in the conference, not whether it actually causes damage

E. out of scope.

IMO Answer B:

A) irrelevant to the goal

B) Best choice

C) Out of scope

D) The use of the word "all" makes it an unlikely choice. If 95% of the effluent reaches the sea, with this choice, you wouldn't want to restrict it.

E) Out of scope, whether or not the effects are reversible is irrelevant to the plan of reducing and limiting further damage.

IMO B,

Would like to see more explanations for eliminating C

IMO B)

A) Out of scope.
C) Additional Information, not relevant.
D) Additional Information, not relevant.
E) It doesn't matter whether it is reversible or not.

schumi_gmat wrote:IMO B,

Would like to see more explanations for eliminating C

I think C is wrong because the countries that generate the largest quantities of the effluents wouldn't be in favor of excessive restrictions. The conclusion wants a solution to ensure against excessive restrictions and the biggest offenders wouldn't be the people in favor of the biggest restrictions.

Got it Osirus

Thanks a ton.

IMO: B

Quick way of approaching this problem: (Ideas/ comments welcome)

Whats the conclusion: There should be controls on effluents
Whats my premise/ Reason why there should be controls: They cause environmental damage

B directly weakens my premise as it raises a doubt by questioning whether effluents will actually cause an environmental damage.

Cheers!!!
TJ

Hmm... why wouldn't the answer be E? If the effects weren't reversible, everything would become worse, which would cause more restrictions..

I would go with option B as the correct option