Environmentalist: Many people prefer to

Answer choices

1. A

   Weakens1% picked this

   Regions of natural beauty typically are beautiful enough to attract new residents only until governmentally mandated environmental protection that

   The author's conclusion is arguing that governmentally mandated protection helps the economies (presumably by protecting the natural beauty that entices new residents and businesses to relocate there). But this answer is going the opposite direction, saying that the region is doing a great job enticing new residents only until this government protection comes on the scene. This answer makes it sound like the government protection actually hurts the local economies.

   1%
2. B

   Too Strong: most / primarily40% picked this

   The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed

   Since this answer has that lovable Necessary Assumption quality of ruling out an idea with "not", we can negate it and see if it weakens. At first, it definitely does seem to weaken if we say that, the economies of most of these regions are based primarily on industries that would be harmed by government environmental protection. But, the conclusion is only saying that government protection can help the economy overall, not that it always would, not that it would in most cases. So the conclusion could still be fine, even if governmentally mandated protection was harmful to the economies of most regions of natural beauty. The other issue is that even in the regions whose economies are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by this mandated protection, the author still thinks that harm caused to the older local industries would be outweighed by the economic benefit of new residents and businesses moving into those regions.

   40%
3. C

   Too Strong: primarily If-Conclusion6% picked this

   If governmentally mandated environmental protection helps a region’s economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to

   Any time we see an answer structured as "If [the conclusion]", we know it's wrong. The conclusion should only appear on the right side of the arrow. (It's fine for an answer to say, "If [not-conclusion]", because by contraposing that you would get the conclusion on the right side of the arrow). Also, this just doesn't make much sense. The author thinks the primary way that government environmental protection helps an economy is by preserving the region's natural beauty. The natural beauty is what encourages people to move into the region, not the mandated government environmental protection.

   6%
4. D

   Out of Scope: voluntary protection5% picked this

   Voluntary environmental protection usually does not help a region’s economy to the degree that governmentally

   This argument never mentions voluntary protection and doesn't make any comparative or prescriptive claims that would make a comparison to other types of environmental protection relevant. He's just saying governmentally mandated protection helps the economy. It doesn't weaken the truth of that claim if voluntary protection also helps the economy (even if it helps it to an equal or greater degree).

   5%
5. E

   Correct48% picked this

   A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from

   Why this is right

   This answer disguises its reference to the New Term (governmentally mandated environmental protection) by alluding to it as "a factor harmful to some older local industries". This answer has the lovable ruling out "not" quality that makes us slow down, negate, and ask ourselves if the negation would weaken. Governmentally mandated environmental protection in a region does necessarily discourage other businesses from relocation to that region. This would badly weaken the story the author is selling. He thinks that the harm done to older local industries by this protection would be outweighed economically by the boon of having residents and businesses relocate there. But if the mandated environmental protection were a deterrent that kept businesses from relocating, then the it would provide economic harm without providing an eventual economic benefit.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   48%