Question

One of the possible results of the further depletion of the ozone in the atmosphere would be a sharp increase in the demand for sunscreens. Many of the ingredients in sunscreens are natural, and the demand for these products will require strict conservation laws. This will represent the victory for those who desire greater protection for the environment. Which one of the following best states the conclusion in the passage above?

• A. Industries that produce ozone-depleting chemicals should be encouraged to continue doing so.
• B. Regulation of ozone-depleting chemicals should be handled on a federal level.
• C. The natural ingredients in sunscreen products should be replaced by synthetic substitutes.
• D. The effects of ozone depletion on the environment are not categorically negative.
• E. The few positive effects of ozone depletion are far outweighed by the myriad negative effects.

Hint:

To find the conclusion, look for the statement that is supported by the rest of the text. Often, premises are statements of fact or chains of events, while the conclusion is the author's ultimate judgment or claim based on those premises.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a Critical Reasoning question that asks you to identify the main conclusion of a passage. The conclusion is the central claim that the author is trying to prove, which is supported by the other statements in the passage.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's break down the argument's structure:

Premise 1: Ozone depletion \(\rightarrow\) Increased demand for sunscreen.
Premise 2: Sunscreen has natural ingredients.
Premise 3: Increased demand for these ingredients \(\rightarrow\) Stricter conservation laws.
Conclusion: This outcome (stricter conservation laws) will be a "victory" for environmentalists.
The overall point is that a negative event (ozone depletion) leads through a chain of events to a positive outcome (a victory for environmental protection). The argument is highlighting an unexpected positive consequence of a generally negative phenomenon.
Let's evaluate the options based on this understanding:

(A) This is a bizarre and unsupported conclusion. The passage does not encourage ozone depletion.
(B) The passage does not discuss federal vs. other levels of regulation.
(C) The passage states the ingredients \textit{are} natural, which leads to conservation laws. It does not advocate for replacing them.
(D) This correctly captures the main point. The argument shows that ozone depletion, while generally bad, can have an effect that is "not categorically negative"—namely, it can lead to a "victory" for the environment in the form of conservation laws.
(E) The passage only mentions one positive effect and does not compare it to the "myriad negative effects." It doesn't make a judgment on the overall balance, only that at least one positive effect exists.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The entire passage is structured to show that a negative event (ozone depletion) can lead to a positive outcome (stricter conservation laws). Therefore, the overall conclusion is that the effects of ozone depletion are not entirely, or "categorically," negative.