Self-study
Support The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits. ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ████████████ █████████
Argument Summary
The premises set up a conditional chain. First, any environmental problem that isn't caused by government mismanagement can be solved only by major changes in consumer habits. Second, major changes in consumer habits will happen only if those changes are economically enticing. Chain those together:
env problem NOT from
gov mismanagement
→
gov mismanagement
solution requires major
consumer habit changes
→
consumer habit changes
solution must be
economically enticing
economically enticing
So for any environmental problem not caused by government mismanagement, the solution must be economically enticing. From this, the author concludes that few serious ecological problems will be solved unless their solutions are made economically enticing.
The Missing Piece
Notice that "serious ecological problems" is a brand-new concept in the conclusion. The premises don't mention serious ecological problems at all. They only talk about "environmental problems not resulting from government mismanagement." So the correct answer must, at minimum, connect serious ecological problems to something in the premises.
We can get more specific than that. The conditional chain tells us that environmental problems not caused by government mismanagement require economically enticing solutions. The conclusion says few serious ecological problems will be solved without economically enticing solutions. To bridge that gap, we want to know that most serious ecological problems fall into the category of "not caused by government mismanagement." That would funnel most serious ecological problems into the chain, giving us the conclusion.
13.
The conclusion drawn in the ████████ █████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
a
Few serious ecological ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██████████████
(A) tells us that few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement. In other words, most serious ecological problems are not the result of government mismanagement. This is exactly the bridge we want. Once we know that most serious ecological problems aren't caused by government mismanagement, they get funneled into the conditional chain:
most serious
ecological problems
→
ecological problems
solution requires
consumer habit changes
→
consumer habit changes
must be economically
enticing
→
enticing
few solved without
econ. enticement
econ. enticement
(We're meant to understand "ecological problems" and "environmental problems" as referring to the same thing. The difference in wording doesn't matter.)
b
No environmental problems ████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████████ █████████
(B) tells us about environmental problems that do stem from government mismanagement. But the conditional chain applies only to problems that are not from government mismanagement. So (B) is talking about the wrong category of problems entirely, and it doesn't establish anything about serious ecological problems. Without connecting serious ecological problems to the chain, we can't reach the conclusion.
c
Major changes in ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ████████████ █████████
(C) tells us that major changes in consumer habits can be made economically enticing. That's nice, but it doesn't establish anything about serious ecological problems. The gap in this argument isn't about whether consumer habit changes can be made enticing. The gap is about whether serious ecological problems are the kind of problems that require those changes in the first place. (C) leaves that gap wide open.
d
Most environmental problems ████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████████ ███ █████ ██████████ █████████
(D) goes in the wrong direction. We need to know that most serious ecological problems are not caused by government mismanagement. (D) tells us that most problems not caused by government mismanagement are serious ecological problems. That's "most As are Bs," not "most Bs are As."
To see the difference: imagine 100 problems aren't caused by government mismanagement, and 90 of those are serious ecological problems. (D) is satisfied. But there could be 1,000 serious ecological problems total, with 910 of them caused by government mismanagement. Now the vast majority of serious ecological problems don't trigger the conditional chain in the premises, and we can't reach the conclusion.
e
Few serious ecological ████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████
(E) tells us that few serious ecological problems can be solved by major changes in consumer habits. But knowing that consumer habit changes won't solve most serious ecological problems doesn't tell us what is required to solve them. Maybe most of them require government action, and government action doesn't need to be economically enticing. (E) gives us no basis for concluding that economically enticing solutions are necessary.