Reading Comprehension

Pelase track time too.
Looking for explanation of one particular question, will let you knw after few replies.

Few ideas are more deeply entrenched in our political culture than that of
impending ecological doom. Beginning in 1962, when Rachel Carson
warned that pollution was a threat to all human and animal life on the
planet, pessimistic appraisals of the health of the environment have been
issued with increasing urgency.

And yet, thanks in large part to her warnings, a powerful political
movement was born and a series of landmark environmental bills became
law. These laws and their equivalents in Western Europe, along with a
vast array of private efforts spurred by environmental consciousness that
Carson helped raise, have been a stunning success in both the United
States and Europe where environmental trends are, for the most part,
positive; and environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and
expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective, have cost less than was
anticipated, and have made the economies of the countries that have put
them into effect stronger, not weaker.

Recycling, which was a fringe idea a decade ago, is now a major
growth industry, and is converting more than twenty per cent of
America's municipal wastes into useful products. Emissions of
chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer, have been declining
since 1987. Dozens of American cities once dumped raw sludge into the
ocean. Today, instead of being dumped into the ocean, municipal sludge
is either disposed of in regulated landfills or, increasingly, put to good use
as fertilizer.

America's record of protecting species threatened with extinction,
which is often depicted as dismal, is in truth enviable. Since 1973, when
the Endangered Species Act took effect, seven animal species in North
America have disappeared. Several hundred others once considered
certain to die out continue to exist in the wild. A number of species,
including the bald eagle and the Arctic peregrine falcon have been or are
being taken off the priority-protection list.

It's true, of course, that some environmental programs are muddled.
For instance, the Endangered Species Act can have the unfair effect of
penalizing landholders who discover rare creatures on their property, by
prohibiting use of the land. In the main, though, conservation has been
an excellent investment. Thanks to legislation, technical advances, and
lawsuits that have forced polluters to pay liability costs, America's air and
water are getting cleaner, forests are expanding, and many other
environmental indicators are on the upswing.

Nevertheless, the vocabulary of environmentalism has continued to be
dominated by images of futility, crisis, and decline. Nor are
environmentalists the only people reluctant to acknowledge the good
news; advocates at both ends of the political spectrum, each side for its
reasons, seem to have tacitly agreed to play it down. The left is afraid of
the environmental good news because it undercuts stylish pessimism; the
right is afraid of the good news because it shows that governmental
regulations might occasionally amount to something other than
wickedness incarnate, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.

1. Which of the following statements is false as it pertains to the information
given in the passage?
A. Chlorofluorocarbons no longer damage the ozone layer.
B. Technical advances have contributed to conservation.
C. Raw sludge is no longer a source of ocean pollution for the United
States.
D. Recycling has had an impact on landfill dumping.
E. Some environmental programs are muddled

2. Based on information in the passage, each of the following statements is a
plausible explanation of why pessimistic appraisals of the environment
continue to be issued EXCEPT:
A. environmentalists and politicians are unaware of the successes of the
movement.
B. an immense amount of work still needs to be done to save the
environment.
C. optimistic evaluations would have unwanted political repercussions.
D. environmentalists garner support by arousing concerns and fears.
E. selfish interests of certain groups of people

3. If the claims made in the passage are correct, how would politicians on the
political right be expected to react to America's program to protect
endangered species from extinction?
A. They would extol it because its success is not attributable to
governmental regulation.
B. They would extol it because its success refutes the pessimistic claims
of the political left.
C. They would criticize it because its success was due to costly
regulations.
D. They would criticize it because it has not shown any measurable
success.
E. They would be indifferent towards it

4. What is the main function of the 3rd paragraph in the passage?
A. to criticise industry for increased pollution
B. to urge the government to ban the dumping of effluents in rivers
C. to suggest that things are not bad as are made out to be by certain
groups of people
D. to describe the positive impact of efforts to control environmental
degradation
E. to provide an agenda for pollution control