Jordan: If a business invests the money necessary to implement ecologically sound practices, its market share will decrease. But if it doesn't implement these practices, it pollutes the environment and wastes resources. Terry: But if consumers demand environmental responsibility of all businesses, no particular business will be especially hurt. In which one of the following exchanges is the logical relationship between Jordan's and Terry's statements most similar to the logical relationship between their statements above?

Explanation: **Jordan's argument (Original):** Presents a dilemma where doing Action X (implementing sound practices) leads to Bad Consequence A (market share decrease), and *not* doing Action X leads to Bad Consequence B (pollutes environment). **Terry's argument (Original):** Introduces a condition (If consumers demand environmental responsibility) that nullifies Bad Consequence A (market share will decrease) for the business, thus defeating the dilemma. **Option 1 (Jordan):** Dilemma: Action X (rain) leads to Bad Consequence A (picnic thwarted). Not doing Action X (no rain) leads to Bad Consequence B (garden not watered). **Option 1 (Terry):** Introduces a condition (we can buy a hose) that fixes Bad Consequence B (garden not watered). This logic parallels the original: Jordan presents a dilemma, and Terry resolves it by introducing an external action that mitigates one of the bad consequences.