For me the contenders were A and B.

Why not B: "Not all" of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.>> let say 10 percent people were from "outside the town" or let say 80 percent of the people were out of the town. Might only one person is coming from "out of town"...!!!!. It only make economic sense if you have large number of "out of town" guys coming to the town.

Why A: It just say that "Most" of cross country skiers do not come to Milville because of pollution>>> It directly damage the economic position due to amount of pollution...Milville is definitely missing some financial boost.

Hope it helps..

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
>> This statement specifies that the number of people who go for snowmobiling is reduced.
So it is a counter to the spokesperson's statement "basic economics for us to put up with the pollution."
=>Pollution will reduce the basic economics if people of keeping out of snowmobiling because of pollution.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
>>This statement looks like a good option.But when you check the 'Not all' part, it shows though there could be less number of people from out of town, there are more number of people with in twon. It does not show the significant reduction in people who come for snowmobiling and so it will not counter the spokesperson's argument on money.

So A is the correct candidate.
_________________

+1Kudos, if this helps

A is good in the lot.

Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

is there any big difference between saying "not all of the people" and "a great many cross country skiers..." besides --- isn't cross country skiers a very specific set of people where as "out-of-towners" could be any kind of people interested in pursuing snow-mobiling .... not necessarily "cross country skiers".

in my reasoning the basic argument was that because people come from outside - it generates revenue and hence snowmobiling is good. The environmentalist says it shoudl be banned because it creates pollution. If it can be shown that pollution can be controlled and still the town can make money - something which D does - would that not be appropriate?

Dear Testluv - I think you've unravelled the anatomy of my confusion pretty brilliantly! There were just too many things at play here - not the least of which is the claim of many people (which of course I read after I had attempted the problem) that this is an easy question which was kind of bewildering. Anyway. Things at play were - cross country skiers - pollution - out-of-towners - economics. As you have de-constructed - the argument is basically about what the impact on revenue is from the activities indigenous to Milville - activities that include winter sports such as snow mobiling, skiing and recreational use of parks. I try to follow exactly what the question says - of course I follow it incorrectly is what I am learning now.
I hastily eliminated A because it talked about cross country skiers
I rejected B because Not all - exactly as you explained (and I knew the basic semantics around it) could mean anything.
C is essentially buttressing the environmentalists claim but adding nothing new
E - is concerned with the residents of milville where as business guy is talking about revenues from out of towners.

So while I was on the right track in terms of overall analysis - I was too hasty (and was perhaps lacking an overall picture) in excluding A because for a moment I did not reckon that cross country skiers belong to the same set of out-of-towners who ostensibly bring the revenue (economics) that the Business guy is talking about.

Well - TestLuv - once again - hats off, kudos and a big thank you for being so patient and generous in your explanations.

Regards

EDIT: In so many instances in the past - I have come across choices that are eliminated on the very grounds that I eliminated A on - passage is talking about X but the choice builds in a small difference as a trap. So here I felt cross country skiers - which I took to be distinct from - "sundry out-of-towners" - was actually a trap. Well!! Of course D talks about industrial pollution - but I got misled by the fact that it was still pollution. Essentially D does not address the issue of Economics and had I analyzed the structure of the argument before cracking the choices I would have kept this point in mind and would have eliminated D straight off the bat. Then perhaps I could have chosen as the best among the remaining choices because I had no difficulty removing the other ones. I was essentially between A and D. Anyway...enough said...

A

Argument has to be made to support
Has to consider economy viability
A makes sense as it does provide alternative route
BCE has no value to counter argument
D provides a point but cannot be used to counter argument against use of snowmobile