Can someone explain this question in more detail? Thanks in advance!
devonFebruary 8, 2023
Second this: It's seems to me that there's reason to believe that the regulations won't help the economy if the economy is based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by the mandate. This is because there is no clear reason to think that the incoming businesses would be able to 'fill the gap' created by the harmed local industry on which the economy primarily rests. Ex) if the economy was primarily based on the extant oil drilling industry which is now seriously harmed by the regulations (regulations that regulate presumably on that sector specifically), what reason is there to believe that a new business will be able to adequately make up for that loss?
All in all, I could use some more explanation as to why B is flat out wrong or why E is a superior alternative.
Thank you
Emil-KunkinFebruary 10, 2023
Hi, a necessary assumption question like this is asking us what the author must agree with. The author is arguing that regulation can help the economy as a whole even if it hurts a few local industries. B tells us that the economies of these areas are not based mostly on these industries that would be harmed.
The author could absolutely believe that B is true, as long as they think that the new businesses will be able to makeup the loss of the old ones. B might strengthen the argument, but it does not have to be true.
E does have to be true, if fracking has destroyed a regions water supply, then no new businesses will move there, so the whole reason of the argument falls apart.
