Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most

[Samy]

Q8:
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the
argument below?
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental
regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the
states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth.
This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since
______.

A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in
education and job training
B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have
higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations
C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering
weakening their environmental regulations
D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced
increased economic growth
E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at
least some growth

What according to you is the correct ans and why ?
Thanks a lot.

[StaceyKoprince]

I think A is the best answer.

Argument:
Hypothesis: strict environmental regulations results in reduced economic growth
problem: states with strict regulations also have highest growth (no cause effect given - just note that both are present. This is called a correlation - they're present together but not necessarily connected by a cause-effect relationship.)
The fact that they're correlated doesn't mean that environmental regs cause economic growth.

So we need some reason to show that just because they're correlated doesn't mean one causes the other. One way to do this is to have some other thing that is likely to result in economic growth.

A) education and job training are likely to result in economic growth. Check.
B) this is just repeating the correlation we were already given in the argument. No new info.
C) this is out of scope - it doesn't address the idea that something else might be causing the growth instead of environmental regs
D) this would tend to reinforce the idea that environmental regs do result in economic growth. That's the opposite of what we want to show.
E) this is also out of scope - it doesn't address the idea that something else might be causing the growth instead of environmental regs

[Samy]

Bang on TARGET !!
That was a great piece of reasoning from you.
Thanks.

I went with C because - if a state experiencing reduced economic growth is considering weakening its environmental regulations then we have reason to believe that "environmental regulations do not promote growth".

However I did not grasp the correlation aspect that you mentioned. That shows more careful reading of the problem was needed.

Thanks.
Awesome analysis as always !!
:D

[Everything OR Nothing]

@ Stacy,
As explained by you, how can we assume that education and job training can result in economic growth of certain country??
Although I agree,the rest of the 4 choices are nowhere close to answer,so A should be ok

[RonPurewal]

@ Stacy,
As explained by you, how can we assume that education and job training can result in economic growth of certain country??
Although I agree,the rest of the 4 choices are nowhere close to answer,so A should be ok

i'm a little confused here; you wrote "I agree", but you seem to be disagreeing.

in CR, you do have to use a certain amount of common sense / basic understanding of how the world works. if you think about the results of education and (especially) job training, you'll realize that those results are tied into economic growth and development.

in fact, this is the primary reason why the CR section even exists on this test in the first place -- to give you situations that require a certain amount of common sense mixed in with precise thinking. you can't solve the problems using nothing but formal/rigorous logic; that's the whole point.

[sanghvi.naman1]

@ Stacy, some comments on line of reasoning.

I said Ohk, so the argument says that 'strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth'... but this does not show that environmental regulations promote growth
#. Is there an alternate reason for the high growth in areas where regulations are stricter
# or is there something that shows that there is no direct correlation between the two


1. I picked E because of the following reasoning...
-- states with weak regulations have some growth also. This option says that there is no relation between growth and regulations... While some states with stricter regulations have greater grwoth, there are states with weak regulations also who have growth... This option shows that the two are not related

2. I did not pick A because of the following reasoning...
-- THis option provided an alternate reason... and while possible requires certain assumptions ! such as better education and trainning will translate into growth... While possible, there is some leap in assumption. Better education -----> Growth (other factors could be there).

Can't eliminate A, but E sounds better and requires less assumptions

[RonPurewal]

1. I picked E because of the following reasoning...
-- states with weak regulations have some growth also. This option says that there is no relation between growth and regulations...

No.
To see why this doesn't work, just use an analogy to something where there's an obvious correlation. E.g., having college degrees correlates to higher income.
This choice would become Even people without college degrees still make some income.
Ok, so they make some money, i.e., not $0. But it should be celar that this observation does not disprove the idea that college degrees are correlated with additional income.

Yes, choice A requires certain assumptions, but (a) those assumptions are quite reasonable, and (b) you don't have to rigorously prove things.

[das.abhijit34]

Ron/Stacy,

C - "many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations "

C seems to suggest a reverse relationship - meaning environmental regulations HINDERS economic growth.

Why cant that be a proof of environmental regulations DOES NOT promote economic growth ?

Please help me clarify my thinking process.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Ron/Stacy,

C - "many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations "

C seems to suggest a reverse relationship - meaning environmental regulations HINDERS economic growth.

Why cant that be a proof of environmental regulations DOES NOT promote economic growth ?

Please help me clarify my thinking process.

Thanks

That only works if you're already assuming two things:
1/ that the correlation you're trying to prove has already been proved (!!),
2/ that these states' actions are well-informed decisions.

E.g., "Many overweight people are trying to cut fat from their diets" obviously doesn't prove that lower-fat diets will promote weight loss (or that higher-fat diets will promote weight gain).
The only thing it proves is that some overweight people (the ones who are trying to cut fat) think that those things are true.

[THANHD377]

Hi experts,

In this question, the causal relationship was weakened by showing that there is an alternate cause for the stated effect. However, can we also weaken the causal relationship by showing that there is an alternate effect for the stated cause?

I.e. those states with the highest economic growth experience a high level of general health due to a cleaner environment.

To me, it doesn't sound like the example is weakening the causal relationship at all!

Can I assume that introducing an alternate effect for the stated cause will not undermine the argument?

[StaceyKoprince]

I'm not 100% sure I'm following what you said—but I'll try my best to answer.

If I say "I think A causes B"
And then you say "Oh, but A causes C"
I can say "So? There are no limitations on the number of things that A could cause. It could cause a million different things."

If on the other hand, I say "I think A causes B"
And you can prove "Actually D has been shown to cause B"
Then that somewhat weakens the idea that A causes B, simply because something else definitely does cause B. The more that something else really does cause B, the less likely it is that A causes B.

[THANHD377]

Your answer is very clear.

Thanks, Stacey!!!

[RAHULS852]

Hi Sage/ Manhattan expert,

I understand that (A) is right answer as this choice gives alternate reason for economic growth.
I am still not clear on conclusion "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth,"

Argument:
Hypothesis: strict environmental regulations results in reduced economic growth (Fact 1- regulations & growth are inversely related)
problem: states with strict regulations also have highest growth (Fact 2 -regulations & growth are directly related)
The fact that they're correlated doesn't mean that environmental regulations cause economic growth. So here can I interpret 2 conclusions ?

1) X (strict regulations) & Y ( high economic growth) are present together does not mean that X causes Y. There might be another factor Z that caused Y.
2) regulations & growth are inversely related as mentioned in fact 1.

Not any choice gives support for (2) but (A) gives support for (1).

Also in last i interpreted that "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth" This highlighted portion means both relationships.
(i) (Fact 2 -regulations & growth are directly related)
(ii) (Fact 1- regulations & growth are inversely related)

Then conclusion 1 will be only valid interpretation.

Kindly check my understanding.

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I think it's simpler than you're making it. The conclusion of an argument is the main claim of the author or speaker. When you're looking for the conclusion, you don't need to translate the argument or read between the lines, you can actually quote the words. Here, the author's big claim is "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth". That's the conclusion of the argument.

[RAHULS852]

Ok I should not overthink about conclusion. As last line mentioned "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth", I should simply understand this statement as conclusion.

Thanks Sage for clarification.

Regards,
Rahul Singh