I got this question correct initially, but am going through all the NA questions in an attempt to improve and just got it incorrect..

Premise: Naturally beautiful regions often experience influx of residents, which causes business to relocate to these regions

Conclusion: Government-mandated environmental protection in these regions can help economies overall, even if the protections harm some older industries

What I am looking for: need to connect premise to conclusion — so far we are not able to determine how the env regs will help economy overall, regardless if older industries will potentially be negatively impacted. So, influx of residents -> new business -> strengthen economy, despite potential harm to older industries caused by government-mandated env protections

A: what? took me a minute to parcel out (instincts told me to eliminate when going through in real time) but this implies that once env regs are imposed, new residents won’t be attracted to the region. Definitely not a necessary assumption.

B: I choose this because I made some sort of assumption that if this statement were true (local industries have shit-all to do with the economies of these regions), that I made a further assumption that ok, of course, new businesses would positively impact the economy? When in actuality this choice does nothing for or against the argument

C: Env regs -> Influx of people -> stronger economy? Ok sure… strengthens argument but isn’t necessary

D: Irrelevant - who cares?

E: Correct. A factor (env regs) that is harmful to older local industries doesn’t negatively impact the economy, as new business are unaffected by the regs and can still move to the region

Would like to be included! I work FT but have been studying since June. I've done 36-40 and 43, am trying to work my way into the newer tests. Am currently hitting mid 160s but my goal is 168+.

Also interested!

Same here