Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been...

Annie May 8, 2020

Hi @nimakian801,

This question is asking you to pick the answer choice which allows the environmentalist's conclusion to be "properly drawn." Essentially, this means you need to pick the answer choice which fills in an assumption that the environmentalist is relying on.

Answer (A) is correct because it does just that. The environmentalist's argument looks like this:

Premise: The oil company told press that photos of oil-covered otters are bad for business.
Premise: ??
Conclusion: The oil company is not concerned about the environment.

Now, to reach the environmentalist's conclusion, you need to fill in an explanation for why the photos of oil covered otters being bad for business means that the oil company isn't concerned about the environment. One way to do this, is to say that the oil company could not have had more than one motive. The environmentalist is telling us that one of their motives was their sales. So, if they could not have had another motive, then the oil company can't have been concerned for the environment.

I think you may be getting mixed up because you are questioning the environmentalist's argument. It is true that the company could have had only one motive and that motive could have been to help the environment. But, the environmentalist has proposed that they have another motive, aka their business interests. You are trying to pick an answer choice which makes the environmentalist's argument correct, so you need to work within the confines of the environmentalist's argument.