In a nutshell, the developer says there is a country whose strict regulatory rules ban personal property holders from erecting buildings on their plot if any rarified animals in danger on the land. These rules render the existence of those animals a serious fiscal burden on them as their hands are tied businesswise. By virtue of those sacred beings, the proprietors feel reluctant about sheltering them and shielding them from harms. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be jeopardized, if not better served, if the bureaucratic red tape is peeled off for good.
(A) is not the one we are looking for. Because the author is not mixed up between the absence of a condition or the presence of a condition that is no longer in effect which was designed to protect the endangered species from the outset but would be revoked on the assumption that its absence would not likely to harm them and a condition that would be obliged to avoid the endangerment of those rare species on the land.
B) is somewhat irrelevant. Above all, there is no morality-bound call or moral verdict grounded on fact-based assertions or accounts. In my opinion, a value judgment is like this: it is not ethical for humans to endanger those rarified species further by not protecting their subsistence. But this argument is the opposite of the developer's conclusion. Based on the factual grounds, he/she thinks one could go back on this duty because his assessment projects that this dispensation/waiver/relief does not likely harm those species. It rationalizes a claim based on the alleged facts without a value judgment.
(C) is the guy we have been searching for. This Mr. Right has it all. It, all of a sudden, somewhat irrationally, snubs any probability that even if some factors are prone to engender a presumed effect, they might be likely to beget more powerful countermanding/offsetting effects too. Then the final outcome could be more harm to those animals.
For instance, this suspension of the rule application might put those animals out of harm's way if those landowners just do not do anything about this roll-back except feeling happy about the exemption of the financial liability. However, what if there are other hyenas lurking around to capitalize on this repeal? They could be poachers eager to snare those animals to make money out of them. It could backfire on those animals which are be supposed to be protected in the absence of those rules.
(D) is a bit weird-do. No need to zoom in on those landowners to play a blame game. Those landowners could indeed enjoy the removal of regulatory rules in a different way than anticipated. For instance, once those regulations are rescinded, they decide to turn those animals into their cash cow to rake in dollars. Sure, it is possible. But it is not a flaw that is the most noticeable in his argument. The principal perp is his negligence about considering the side effects or backlash from the revocation esp. from the perspective of those animals meant to be protected by design. That was what his/her conclusion was about.
(E) is a total jerk and a typical A-hole wasting my time. This argument has no bearing on those landowners on whose tract no endangered species live.
#Help
Is there anyone who would vet my rather flimsy thought process? I was very tempted by Choice (A) like all the other students. I opted out of it at the 11th hour thanks to the lightbulb moment. But I cannot stand by that I reached the conclusion in a fashion, pursuant to the industry standards, so to speak. Hope this was not another fishing expedition. Please let me know if there are any kinks in my thought process which should be ironed out for the sake of the consistency.
I thought (A) was a thinly veiled ally for someone who wants to weaken this president. Because if you measure someone's work productivity and time management in the same way, it would be like this: Whoever reviews the most amount of documents during the same 1 hr period is the most productive. That person ends up being the one best at time management since, in that universe, almost all the time, if you use your time efficiently, you can get as many works done as possible within that time frame, which is an indicator of work productivity. But, in reality, as we all know, they do not necessarily go in tandem. For instance, I am a slow reader so in order to cover all the assigned readings before the next class, I have to set aside as many minutes as possible for that one task. No more hanging out with chums or TV zapping or binge-watching...This means I might be good at time management because each minute counts to me and I do not waste any. But my productivity is fairly low in comparison with other high-functioning students who could finish reading all of them in less minutes. Thus, they can continue to live life to the fullest and have some fun on campus, while not compromising on their duty. Who knows how many rounds of beerpong or skinny-dipping they might have before the next class unlike a slow-on-the-uptake dork like I am?
Getting back to the point, in that way, this person is not serious about finding any correlation as well as causation that might exist inbetween by applying the same assessment standards to both categories. Then, this flawed evaluation on which his recommendation (a.k.a. argument) is predicated would persuade no one. Because, regardless of what, those two groups are supposed to be close to one another illicitly, if not identical. Then, it weakens his argument by blurring the conceptual distinctions between those efficient and those good at time management.
(B) is wrong because if good time management is likely to be swayed more by one's goal-oriented mindset than learned hacks, then this does weaken his argument. It would be better off to incentivize those mid-level managers with rewards to have them more driven.
(C) is wrong because this exposes the inefficiency of the current program. Then, why should it be repeated, instead of being revised? It might be better than nothing but there is no reason to stick to it as most of the attendees still remain unproductive.
(D) is our guy as it is the left field statement. That means it never does much to the argument we should weaken. This is about "the most managers who are already efficient". The target at stake in the question is "our mid-level managers". Some of them could be already good at time management. But this what-about-itsm will get us nowhere in this Weaken section. Besides, the most off-putting issue is that it deals with the set of people who do not have much in common with our target group. In terms of undermining his assertion, it is pretty much useless. Thus, (D) is the one.
(E) is wrong because it also weakens what this argument presupposes; Most of the managers who are efficient have not been touched by the grace of this president's pet project. Maybe a sliver of them..like 1 out of 100.. If they have been efficient and productive from Day one and did not even bother to show up for this event, what's the point of hosting it? Why does one need to have some faith in this program's efficacy?
Warning: The cited instance is based on a non-fictional episode. The readers' discretion is absolutely not needed.