PrepTest 117, Section 2, Question 13

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  Few serious ecological problems result from government mismanagement. That leaves all but a few covered by the first rule. Solving those remaining problems requires major consumer changes, and those changes require economic enticement.

  Without that enticement, the problems covered by the rule won't be solved. Any possible solutions without it would have to come from the small group outside the rule. Since that group contains only a few serious problems, the conclusion follows: few serious problems will be solved without economically enticing solutions.

• B

  Economically feasible means something can be afforded or carried out economically. Economically enticing means it gives people an attractive financial reason to act. Those aren't the same. B also doesn't tell us how many serious problems belong to the government-mismanagement group. It doesn't close the gap that lets a potentially large group fall outside our consumer-change rule.

• C

  Being able to make consumer changes attractive doesn't show that nearly all serious problems require that step. Perhaps we can create the incentives but many problems have other solutions. The conclusion concerns what must happen for problems to be solved, not just whether one proposed condition is possible.

• D

  This looks inside the wrong group. Most problems not caused by government mismanagement could be serious, while that entire group is only a small portion of all serious problems. Imagine ten such problems, nine serious, alongside ninety serious government-caused problems. D could be true, yet most serious problems would still sit outside the first rule.

• E

  This limits how many serious problems consumer changes can solve. It doesn't tell us how many other serious problems might be solved through other means. The government-caused group could still be large, with many solutions that don't require changing consumer habits. E leaves that opening intact.