Clean Air Act

[bleacherseat]

Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.


Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.

[mbadude08]

C

[bleacherseat]

OA IS C.


Why not D ??

PLEASE EXPLAIN

[microke]

C and D are very close. But D is imprecise because, though the corporations left the place, the degree to which they were polluting the air can not be determined. For this reason, it becomes weaker when compared with C.

[Mani_mba]

I also agree to D.

Does not C support the argument ? C says that only 5% of the companies that left the state were engaged in air pollution. So majority of the companies would have left due to some other reasons such as business declension.

[stop@800]

I also agree to D.

Does not C support the argument ? C says that only 5% of the companies that left the state were engaged in air pollution. So majority of the companies would have left due to some other reasons such as business declension.

conclusion is business decline is responsible
we need to weaken so we need to prove something else is responsible

C proves that

[Mani_mba]

I also agree to D.

Does not C support the argument ? C says that only 5% of the companies that left the state were engaged in air pollution. So majority of the companies would have left due to some other reasons such as business declension.

conclusion is business decline is responsible
we need to weaken so we need to prove something else is responsible

C proves that

Could you explain how C proves that ?

[Jatinder]

I had chosen B...

Pls Explain what is wrong with my thought process: I eliminated C as i thought its not the number/percentage of industries emitting pollution that we should attack but it should be the extent of the pollution that is getting emitted.
what if these 5% industries are emitting the max. pollution ?

Pls explain....

[krazy800]

IMO C

"It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution."

Half of the decline mite be the key here... Option C says only 5% of the companies closed/moved out were contributing for air pollution..

therefore, even the economic decline will not cause half the decline in pollution..

[crazy4gmat]

c for me

[Jatinder]

Conclusion says...""It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution."

Its half of the decline in pollution....not decline in business....
So how come % decline of business affects the absolute value of pollution..
Although it can but may not necessarily

[SYim]

IMO: C

Here's my reasoning:
In order to weaken the argument, it should show that the decrease in business is not responsible for reduction in air pollution but something else. If the air pollution reduced, and the businesses that were operating (engaged in air-polluting industries) before economic decline were only 5 % , that means there should be some other reason why there was a reduction in air pollution.

Hope this helps!

[bleacherseat]

I am not buying C yet.


C - of the industries that closed only 5% were polluters. May be those 5% were responsible for 50% of the pollution. We don't know how much they polluted. If you look at this answer choice from the above point of view. It strengthens the conclusion.

Lets look at from another view point. Of the business closed only 5% were polluters. Other closed their shops affecting economy. This weak economy could affect businesses that are still operating and polluting and hence these polluting businesses are not likely to be doing good business/oprationg at less than full levels and hence spreading less pollution. This again strenthen the conclusion.


D - one other hand puts the blame entirely on clean air act for driving the business and hence establishes , regulations of clean air act caused businesses to flee and air pollution dropped.

D does this by reverse causation.

clean air act - drives businessed out -- weakens the economic activity - lessens the pollution.




pls Counter my argument analysis!!!

[bleacherseat]

IMO C

"It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution."

Half of the decline mite be the key here... Option C says only 5% of the companies closed/moved out were contributing for air pollution..

therefore, even the economic decline will not cause half the decline in pollution..

Its possible that those 5% were responsible for 50% of the pollution. we dont know that. Hence not C

[Jatinder]

I am not buying C yet.


C - of the industries that closed only 5% were polluters. May be those 5% were responsible for 50% of the pollution. We don't know how much they polluted. If you look at this answer choice from the above point of view. It strengthens the conclusion.

Lets look at from another view point. Of the business closed only 5% were polluters. Other closed their shops affecting economy. This weak economy could affect businesses that are still operating and polluting and hence these polluting businesses are not likely to be doing good business/oprationg at less than full levels and hence spreading less pollution. This again strenthen the conclusion.


D - one other hand puts the blame entirely on clean air act for driving the business and hence establishes , regulations of clean air act caused businesses to flee and air pollution dropped.

D does this by reverse causation.

clean air act - drives businessed out -- weakens the economic activity - lessens the pollution.




pls Counter my argument analysis!!!

D to me strengthens the arguement...
Does not "Left businneses" corresponds to "business declines" ?