A?

Hi @smilde11, thanks for your post. Absolutely. This is a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question. Let's analyze the stimulus. The first sentence of the stimulus basically establishes two categories of environmental problems: (1) those caused by government mismanagement, and (2) those caused by consumers. The rest of the stimulus says that if you want to address the second category of environmental problem, you have to make changes in consumer habits economically enticing. Otherwise, concludes the argument, "few serious ecological problems" will be solved. But this is not necessarily true. We do not know the *proportion* of environmental problems rooted in government mismanagement vs. consumer habits. What if most environmental problems were caused by government mismanagement? Then making consumer habit changes economically enticing will certainly not resolve most serious ecological problems, right? Answer choice (A) names this necessary assumption - that is, that "few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement." If you negated this statement, it would say "many serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement," and the argument in the stimulus would fall apart. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

thank you!

Could you analyze the question stem and explain why A is correct?

Isn't this question stem strengthen with sufficient premise, not with necessary premise?

^^^^^

Hi, there's a major flaw on the argument. The argument likely does show that few problems not chased by government error can be solved without major economic changes. However, this is only one subset of all environmental problems. The argument ignored the possibility that the majority of environmental problems are caused by government mismanagement. The author must agree with A, otherwise the flaw would destroy her argument.