|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2618
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
142
[1] , given: 0
|
A report on acid rain concluded, Most forests in Canada are [#permalink]
 01 Feb 2008, 14:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
100% (01:02) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.”
Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?
(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 56
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28 [#permalink]
01 Feb 2008, 14:08
1
This post received
KUDOS
is the OA D?
(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.
even if true..it does not make the statement "most forest" incorrect..so there is no justification
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.
not a strong justification
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.
not a strong justification
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.
a good justification..this proves that the damage may have not begun as yet..but acid rain has been following consistently
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.
not a strong justification
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1612
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
53
[1] , given: 2
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28 [#permalink]
01 Feb 2008, 14:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
i think it is B.
D just says that all forests received .... that means, at one point or another, they received acid rain. Not strong enough to justify why they want the conclusion changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 760
Location: Oxford
Schools: Oxford'10
Followers: 11
Kudos [?]:
148
[1] , given: 8
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28 [#permalink]
01 Feb 2008, 15:13
1
This post received
KUDOS
we are trying to prove that acid rain causes damage to ALL Canadian forests, Period! Which one of these will provide us with the proof GMATBLACKBELT wrote: A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.”
Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?
(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain. doesn't confirm that acid rain causes some damage to all
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible. speculation is not proof
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries. irrelevant, lets stick to Canadian forects
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years. so? where is the evidence about damage?
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest. BINGO!, this is saying that the severity of DAMAGE differs from forest to forest, thereby acknowleging the fact that damage does occur at the very least
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 635
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
114
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28 [#permalink]
01 Feb 2008, 15:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
It's B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2618
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
142
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28 [#permalink]
02 Feb 2008, 16:26
OA is B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28 [#permalink]
03 Feb 2008, 20:51
This is a good one. My analysis led me to A.
Can anyone help in my analysis?
Thanks
The revised conclusion: “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain …” implies some forests could have damaged or not by acid rains.
(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.[Hold it]
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.[This contradicts revised conclusion – eliminate it]
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.[There is no reference in the argument about forests in other countries – eliminate it]
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years. [It is immaterial to argument whether forests in Canada received last fifteen years or not – eliminate it]
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.[That may be true but has no reference to the forests in Canada – eliminate it]
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1447
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
136
[1] , given: 12
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28 [#permalink]
05 Feb 2008, 08:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
I thought B was pretty straightforward.
A I believe is wrong because it agrees with the first report. When you are supposed to justify the critics criticism.
The first report says that "Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain"
That implies that (A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.
This gives no thought to the critics argument. The critic states that most forests do not show "visible signs" of damage implying that are are invisible signs of damage which could cause damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Paper CR Test 28
[#permalink]
05 Feb 2008, 08:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
