Columnist: Much of North America and western Europe is more heavily forested and has less acid rain and better air q...

Antionette on December 10, 2013

Help!

Please explain how to break down this question.

5 Replies

Melody on December 16, 2013

Okay, so first thing's first. Let's identify the conclusion and premise of this argument.

Conclusion: The fact that "much of North America and western Europe is more heavily forested and has less acid rain and better air quality now than fives decades ago"..."lends credibility to the claims of people who reject predictions of imminent ecological doom and argue that environmental policies that excessively restrict the use of natural resources may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and sustain the policies that brought about these improvements."

Why? Well because, "much of North American and western Europe is more heavily forested and has less acid rain and better air quality now than five decades ago."

This is a Strengthen Question so our correct answer will strengthen the columnist's reasoning.

Let's take a closer look at answer choice (A). If it is true that "nations sustain their wealth largely through industrial use of the natural resources found within their boundaries," then the columnist's reasoning would be strengthened. While the columnist states that environmental policies that excessively restrict the use of natural resources may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and sustain the policies that brought about these improvements, the columnist does not explain how. This answer choice, however, tells us that nations sustain their wealth largely through the industrial use of natural resources found within their boundaries.

Thus, if environmental policies restrict the use these natural resources, then less wealth will be generated from them. And since nations sustain their wealth largely through the industrial use of these natural resources, lower wealth (due to restrictions placed on the use of natural resources by environmental policies) will probably lower the wealth of the nation, which is necessary to adopt and sustain the policies that brought about the improvements in the first place.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Zahra on June 19, 2018

I'm confused why E cant be the correct answer. I was stuck between A and E

Christopher on June 21, 2018

@Zahra, (E) is actually the opposite of what the author is arguing. In the argument, they suggest that restrictive environmental policies (showing concern for the environment) weakens a nation's ability to create wealth.

Esther on July 31, 2018

im still confused. which part was the conclusion. and which part was the premise

Michelle on August 4, 2018

Thank you for your question, @esther

Premise: "Much of North America and Western Europe is more heavily forested and has less acid rain and better air quality now than five decades ago."

Conclusion: "This lends credibility to the claim that..."