Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiative that initially was promised government fundin...

Victoria on May 19, 2020

Hi @filozinni,

Happy to help!

This is a strengthen question. We are looking for the answer choice which strengthens the passage's ability to properly draw its conclusion.

The passage concludes that it is likely that corporations' actions influenced the government's funding decisions.

Why? (1) Every new major alternative-energy initiative that was promised government funding eventually lost a significant amount of that promised funding. (2) Large corporations have made a point of discouraging alternative-energy projects.

Answer choice (A) is incorrect because it does not impact the passage's reasoning. We do not know whether these projects were initially promised greater amounts of funding nor do the actions of the past two decades necessarily have an impact on the last five years.

Answer choice (B) is incorrect because it weakens the passage's reasoning. If initial funding is always subject to change due to the political process, then there is an alternate explanation for these decreases in funding and the likelihood that corporate actions influenced government funding decreases.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. This answer choice is not discussing alternative-energy initiatives. It could also be viewed as weakening the argument as corporate encouragement reducing project funding would decrease the likelihood that corporate discouragement would have the same effect.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it does not strengthen the argument. It is simply a stronger restatement of the explanation already outlined in the final sentence of the passage.

Answer choice (C) is correct as it strengthens the argument's conclusion. Remember 'the only' introduces a sufficient condition.

Decrease in initial gov funding --> Corporation discourages

Corporation does not discourage --> No decrease in initial gov funding

If corporate discouragement is necessary for a decrease in government funding, then alternative explanations for the decrease in initial funding are eliminated and the conclusion is strengthened.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

filozinni on June 3, 2020

Thank you so much for the great explanation @Victoria!