Critical Reasoning

Question: Which of the following best completes the passage below?
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the Noah 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


The answer to the above question is B. The doubt I have is if we read the second line of stimulus that says "whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent" than when a source of affluent affects or doesn't affects the environment, how can the answer be B? In comparison, D is a much better choice to pick. Please explain.

The problem with D is that it says "All of any given pollutant that is to be controlled reaches the North Sea". So are you saying that if only some (let's say 50%) of the pollutant reaches the North Sea, it should not be made subject to these controls????

When the original stimulus says "whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent", to me it means that even if you cannot identify WHAT is the actual damage caused by a particular effluent, you should still control it.

This is different from saying that to avoid excessive controls, the minimum that needs to be shown that such an effluent actually HAS THE CAPACITY to cause damage. Let's assume that effluent X is completely harmless, then what would be the purpose of banning it?

On the other hand, effluent Y has the capacity to cause damage, then even if you cannot identify what damage has been caused by it, you should still control it.

The important thing to see here is that the countries that favor uniform control are not interested in whether or not it damages the North Sea. In other words if it is hazardous it should be controlled even if it has not been shown to commit specific damage to the sea.

When you read the sentence that needs to be completed, the author wants it to be known that they have to avoid excessively restrictive controls. B is the choice that will complete that thought. The substance must be proven to cause environmental damage because if it cant cause environmental damage and is still controlled the policy becomes too restrictive.

Choice D contradicts the initial evidence. choice D states that any given pollutant must actually reach the Sea. In other words it must be proven to cause specific damage to the North Sea by reaching it. The author already states that no specific damage needs to be proven to ban the substance. It also could be read that all of the pollutant has to reach it, which clearly is not what they are looking to control. Any amount can cause damage.