Top Law Schools

The solution to any...


This is the type of SA question that really tears me apart. If anyone who is exceptional at SA's or has a good way of tackling a question like this would be willing to walk me through it I'd appreciate it a lot. I've done some diagramming which looks like:

EP thats not Gov't mismanag. ----> change consumer habits ---> economically enticing

-------------------------------------

therefore, not many EP's solved unless things become economically enticing.

At the time of me writing this, I have not looked at the answers. I think the answer may be (C) and the only reason is because it seems to connect this diagram I made, but i know this is terrible reasoning, I don't have a solid reason for thinking why it is. Its hard for me to find the gap here - is it that changes can even be made economically enticing in the first place? Or is this more of a trap answer necessary assumption?

Going to try to justify eliminating the other answers now and will go check the answer key, will be checking back at this thread

After thinking about this more, I switch my answer to A. I think C may actually have been a necessary assumption.

SO, why did I pick A?

Because the hole in the argument I think may be the fact that we don't know whether or not few serious ecological problems occur because of government mismanagement. But A takes care of the by adding the assumption that it does.

BUT again , I could be wrong soo ..gona go check the answer key