IMO Dmaihuna wrote:Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of
volatile organic compounds has been wasted. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. This evidence is far from adequate,
however, since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built.
In the reasoning given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.
B. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
C. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide
support.
D. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning’s
contention.
E. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that
position.
The argument says that though the claim (efforts to reduce carbon monoxide emissions are in vain) in bold face seems to be appealing by the evidence provided, but contends that it is not the case and provide another evidence (in bold face) to support reasoning's contention.
