<p>Hi, I'm studying for Critical Reading section of the Official Study Guide for SAT (aka the Blue Book), and I have some questions that I couldn't understand.</p>
<p>(passage excerpt)</p>
<p>...
Nevertheless, the vocabulary of environmentalism has continued to be dominated by images of futility, crisis, and decline. In 1988, Thomas Berry, an essayist popular among ecologists, wrote that "the planet cannot long endure present modes of human exploitation." In 1990, Gaylord Nelson, the former senator from Wisconsin who was a prime mover behind the first Earth Day in 1970, said that environmental problems "are a greater threat to Earth's life-sustaining systems than a nuclear war." And in 1993 Vice President Al Gore said that the planet now was suffering "grave and perhaps irreparable damage." But, at least insofar as the Western world is concerned, this line of thought is an anachronism, rendered obsolete by its own success. Nor are environmentalists the only people reluctant to acknowledge the good news; advocates at both ends of the political spectrum, each side for its own reasons, seem to have tacitly agreed to play it down. The Left is afraid of the environmental good news because it undercuts stylish pessimism;*** the Right is afraid of the good news because it shows that government regulations might occasionally amount to something other than WICKEDNESS INCARNATE, and actually produce benefits at an affordable cost.***
On pg. 727 Question 19:</p>
<p>The sentence that I totally don't understand is between two ***.</p>
<ol>
<li>The phrase "wickedness incarnate" (line 84) is used to
(A) cast aspersions on bureaucratic ineptitude
(B) parody the language used by people with certain political leanings
(C) convey humorously a deep longing of the author
(D) rail against blatant polluters of the environment
(E) suggest the quasi-religious underpinnings of environmentalism</li>
</ol>
<p>The answer is B. The college board's explanation for the answer is:</p>
<p>Choice (B) is correct. The author uses the phrase to ridicule political conservatives' unreasonable suspicion of "government regulations."</p>
<p>However, I still don't understand. Can someone please rephrase and explain what the last part (from "the Right..." to "an affordable cost") mean? And explanations for the answer please</p>
<p>Detailed explanation will be much appreciated :)</p>