Clean Air ACT : Cant figure out the conclusion :(

[tycoon_316]

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.


13. 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.


Can someone please explain to me the conclusion of this argument?
Its one of the questions from 1000 CR
Thanks in advance guys

[yashesha]

the conclusion is the last sentence..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.

Read this:

Counter-Premises

When presenting a position, you obviously don't want to argue against yourself. However, it is often effective to concede certain minor points that weaken your argument. This shows that you are open-minded and that your ideas are well considered. It also disarms potential arguments against your position. For instance, in arguing for a strong, aggressive police department, you may concede that in the past the police have at times acted too aggressively. Of course, you will then need to state more convincing reasons to support your position.

hope this is useful....

[yashesha]

I feel C is the answer...

[borntorun]

IMO C

conclusion; business decline is the cause for the at least half of the reduction in the pollution level ..

option C weakens the conclusio by showing that only 5% of businesses were involved in the air pollution ...

[GangsMAT]

Answer is C,

it is said that pollution declined by 18 % , and C mentions businesses causing air polluting agents constitute only 5 %. And conclusion says half of the decline is due to business decline ( so it should have been atleast 9 to strengthen the conclusion but as C says companies engaged in air polluting industries is only 5 % it clearly weakens the conclusion ).

[diehard800]

Clearly C

As the conclusion had signed off the 18 % loss to the bussiness relocating

But C counters exactly the same by presentign a data most relevant........that the effect was effectively 5 % only


Pl come up with querries if any.

[sourav106]

IMO D)
Knowing that we have come down to C) and D)
C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
This does not whether 5% percent businesses took the maximum onus of polluting or not. It may be that this 5% was the sole reason of pollution...in that case this would actually strengthen the conclusion

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
This states the several corporations left the state during last 10 years to avoid compliance with the clean air act which means the Clean air act which reduced the pollution was responsible for the decline in busines...
But it was not the decline in business that resulted in decline in pollution.(this is stated in the conlusion)

[NishantG]

I choose C at first but I agree with Sourav's explanation. I woo would go with D

[diehard800]

I have a similar question to post...OG11 page 90, Diagnostic test

I am confused between 2 choices i.e. C & E

The question is like this:

For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There as been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accomodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.

Which of the following , if true, most strongly supports the arguement?

A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.
B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.
C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.
E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.

Can anybody help???

Also, tycoom_316 , Can u plz tell me how to post a new thread on this forum??