by noah Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:35 pm
This is an interesting question. The editorial is undermining this argument: people volunteer less because the government is providing those services.
The counter argument is that it may actually be that the government is providing those services because people volunteer less.
This is pointing out that the direction of causation could be reversed. That's an alternate explanation, as (D) notes. This isn't a very strong answer choice - an "alternate explanation" is relevant to something that "may" be the real relationship.
(A) is incorrect because the Editorial does suggest a possible causation.
(B) is tempting, but a counterexample to the correlation would be something like "In Riverdale, there are fewer volunteers, but the government has not stepped in at all, in fact the government is providing fewer services!"
Furthermore, (B) suggests that the Editorial gives a counterexample to the correlation, but the Editorial is undermining a certain direction of causation.
(C) is too broad (and thus out of scope).
(E) is off topic - there's no suggestion that governments MUST do anything.
Does that clear it up?
P.S. I added the first few words of the question - please do that going forward, it makes it easier for future users to find the question they're looking for. Thanks.