can someone explain?

@djayasinghe the argument states that if the regulations had been followed 10 years ago, than Sulfer Dioxide would've decreased. We can diagram that (with its contrapositive) as: RF ==> SDD Not SDD ==> not RF We're also given the fact that SD has increased, in other words Not SDD. So we can conclude not RF (from the contrapositive of the given premise). (B) is correct because it states that there have been violations of the rules imposed 10 years ago (i.e. not RF). (A) is incorrect because the argument only talks about regulations 10 years ago, it does not mention what will happen in the future. (C) is incorrect for the same reason as (A), we cannot make conclusions about the future from this argument. (D) is incorrect because the argument says nothing about how SD compares to other pollution sources. (E) is incorrect because it also makes a claim about the future. I hope that helps!

yes it helps! thank you:)