What is the main conclusion?
Does it matter what an individual does about climate change? A single person's emissions are a tiny part of the total; nothing that one person does will change the climate by a measurable amount. From this some conclude that individual action is pointless. The conclusion does not follow. The same reasoning would show that voting is pointless, since no single vote usually decides an election. Individual actions matter in aggregate, and they matter because they shape what others see as normal and what firms and governments find it profitable or popular to do. At the same time, to put the burden on individuals alone is a way of letting those with greater power off lightly. The question is not whether people should act, but how personal choices and collective rules can reinforce one another.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: E. Individual action matters, though it cannot replace collective rules
- Step 1: The author rejects the claim that individual action is pointless, because the same reasoning would make voting pointless and because actions matter in aggregate and shape what others see as normal.
- Step 2: The author also warns that putting the burden on individuals alone lets the powerful off lightly, and ends by saying personal choices and collective rules should reinforce one another.
Answer
Individual action matters, though it cannot replace collective rules.
Why not the others: "Individual action is pointless" is the view the author rejects; "Only governments can affect the climate" and "Firms should be prevented from acting" are never claimed; voting is used only as an analogy, not named as the most useful action.
Practise more Environment and ethics.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.