Columnist: Much of North America and

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct66% picked this

   Nations sustain their wealth largely through industrial use of the natural resources found

   Why this is right

   This sounds like something the Right could say, since it emphasizes how vital natural resource wealth is to a nation's capacity to pay for environmental initiatives. We know that restricting natural resources via environmental policies would lead to less extraction, so it would lead to less revenue for companies that deal in natural resource extraction / usage. But we don't know, from the argument, whether this is a significant share of the economy. Maybe we could reduce this revenue stream and still have plenty of public money to pay for future environmental initiatives. This answer is ruling out that objection and reassuring everybody that the wealth derived from natural resource usage is the biggest slice of a nation's revenue pie.

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

   66%
2. B

   Unclear Impact: more advanced tech6% picked this

   The more advanced the technology used in a nation’s industries, the greater is that nation’s ability to devote a portion of

   It doesn't make any inherent sense why the Right would start talking about more advanced technology. This argument is just talking about - raising revenue from use of natural resources vs. policies that would limit use - having enough money to pay for future environmental initiatives Neither one of those has any clear tie-in to "the more advanced a nation's industries are".

   6%
3. C

   Too Weak4% picked this

   A majority of ecological disasters arise from causes that are beyond

   Since this answer is saying, "Most of the scary stuff that occurs in nature is beyond human control, anyway", it would somewhat fit as something someone on the Right might say. "It's unwise to excessively restrict the use of natural resources (in the hope of the averting ecological disasters), since most ecological disasters are beyond human control." However, that's a very weak retort. Even if we can't prevent a majority of ecological disasters, that doesn't mean that we give up on trying to prevent the ones that are under human control. And we shouldn't love the feel of this answer since it isn't reinforcing language from the premise or the conclusion (other than "ecological doom" being a cousin of "ecological disasters").

   4%
4. D

   Weakens, if anything17% picked this

   If a compromise between the proponents of economic growth and the environmentalists had been enacted rather than the current policies, the environment

   This answer would be saying, "If the Right had achieved more concessions from the Left when they enacted this environmental bill, then the environment wouldn't have gotten better as much." Someone on the Right wouldn't want to admit that.

   17%
5. E

   Weakens, if anything8% picked this

   The concern demonstrated by a nation for the health and integrity of its natural ecosystems leads to an

   The voices on the Right are saying that "excessive concern for natural ecosystems (restricted usage of resources) would lead to a decrease in the nation's wealth". This answer is saying "concern for natural ecosystems leads to an increase in the nation's wealth."

   8%