Self-study
Columnist: Support 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. ██████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████████████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████████████ ████████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ █████ █████ █████████████
Summarize Argument
The columnist thinks that people are reasonable to claim that excessively restrictive policies on natural resources make it financially difficult to adopt and sustain environmental policies. What's the evidence? That North American and western Europe are more heavily forested and have better air quality than 50 years ago, contrary to predictions of environmental doom.
Notable Assumptions
The columnist assumes that greater restrictions on natural resource use would meaningfully diminish the wealth of North American and western European countries. The columnist also assumes that the improvements over the last 50 years are attributable to effective environmental policies that relied on wealth and didn't overly restrict natural resource use.
19.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████
a
Nations sustain their ██████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ███████████
This affirms the assumption that if nations restrict their natural resource use, they restrict their primary source of wealth. This supports the idea that excessive restrictions would make it difficult to adopt and maintain environmental policies.
b
The more advanced ███ ██████████ ████ ██ █ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ █████████
The columnist never mentions technology, nor social programs. Without some connection to natural resources and the environment, this is totally irrelevant.
c
A majority of ██████████ █████████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ████████
We don’t care about ecological disasters. We’re talking about the ecological damage governments can control through policy, so this isn't relevant.
d
If a compromise ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ ████ █████████████ ████ ████████████
We have no idea what that compromise would look like, nor do we know what policies environmentalists advocated for. And even if we did, it would only weaken the argument to say that greater economic growth would harm the environment.
e
The concern demonstrated ██ █ ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███████
The causal relationship we’re interested in is: fewer restrictions allow for more wealth allows for more environmental protections. Saying that wealth increases when countries demonstrate concern for ecosystems is irrelevant without more detail.