Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided

[asker]

"Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants. The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.

The author is arguing that ____."

"A. no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal
B. the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air
C. allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence
D. to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals
E. benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals"



was wrong at first, and was able to select the right answer on 2nd review.

I think the conclusion sentence is this one: Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal.

But I still didn't understand the reasoning logic, why the new proposal will cause carcinogens increase? Totally lost in the wording here.
Some thoughts for instructor to correct:

Fact: gov's plan: ↓ toxic chem (CARC) by chem ind
goal: ↓ cancers by air pol
BUT ©：chem ind rspn for monitor
P: if plut caused by chem ind, CARC ↑"

[Chelsey Cooley]

Start simple: what is the conclusion here, really? That's the best way to answer a question that asks 'what is the author arguing', since the conclusion is literally a statement of the author's main argument.

One way to find a conclusion is to use the 'therefore' test: place the word 'therefore' between two candidates, and the resulting statement will only make logical sense if you've put the conclusion at the end. We can demonstrate it with two statements from this argument - the one you labeled the conclusion, and the actual conclusion:

the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. THEREFORE... the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.

this makes logical sense - if the chemical industry is supposed to monitor their own emissions, they're likely to be irresponsible and release more carcinogens. That'll have a bad outcome.

the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air. THEREFORE... the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal.

this doesn't make logical sense; more carcinogens in the air doesn't logically lead to giving the chemical industry more responsibility. You could come up with a really tortured argument to show that, but it doesn't follow nearly as naturally as the example above.