Politician: Critics of wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage

B it is.

What it wetlands are defined in such a way that, almost all the existing wetlands fall out of the definition.
In that case, no matter how strict the bill is, it won't have any impact.

B exactly states the same.

Posted from my mobile device

Politician: Critics of wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new more restrictive definition of the term “wetlands.” But this bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do. Therefore, in quibbling over semantics, critics of this bill show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands.

The politician’s reply to the opponents of the wetlands-protection bill is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

Politician : More restriction means the betterment of wetlands
Critics : The disagree with the restriction.

Ans Choice would be : Something which justifies the flaw in politician reply


(A) It falsely identifies the motives of those who have criticized the wetlands-protection bill with the motives of all those who are opposed to conservation. Irrelevant

(B) It does not adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the word “wetlands” determines the impact of the legislation. Incorrect It does recognize

(C) It assumes without justification that those who criticized the wetlands-protection bill stand to profit if the bill is defeated. .... CORRECT BEST AMONG THE GIVEN CHOICES...

(D) It fails to provide a defense for a less restrictive definition of “wetlands.”

(E) It attempts to defend the credibility of the author of the bill rather than defending the bill itself. OUT OF SCOPE

Can anyone please explain in detail.


Also please tell the process that you follow to reach correct answer choice

Thanks in advance

Is it just me or others also felt that the argument was vulnerable to more than 1 answer choice? I ultimately went with the "most" since that was what was required by the question stem.

(A) It falsely identifies the motives of those who have criticized the wetlands-protection bill with the motives of all those who are opposed to conservation. -- Incorrect. Even if true, the claim that they don't care may be true since the critics are delaying the passage of the bill.

(B) It does not adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the word “wetlands” determines the impact of the legislation. -- Correct. This attacks at the heart of the argument. If the definition change actually leaves the legislation toothless or worsens the existing situation, then, it would be a problem. And change in definition of "wetlands" has the potential to do so.

(C) It assumes without justification that those who criticized the wetlands-protection bill stand to profit if the bill is defeated. -- Incorrect. Out of scope.

(D) It fails to provide a defense for a less restrictive definition of “wetlands.” -- Incorrect. "less" restrictive definition of wetlands is out of scope.

(E) It attempts to defend the credibility of the author of the bill rather than defending the bill itself. -- Incorrect. Out of scope.

A. The argument nowhere equates the critics with those who oppose the bill.

B. This option correctly identifies that the definition of wetlands might have an impact on the efficacy of the bill.

C. The argument says that they care little, not that they profit from it.

D. It is more restrictive not less.

E. The author is nowhere mentioned.

Posted from my mobile device

Politician: Critics of wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new more restrictive definition of the term “wetlands.” But this bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do. Therefore, in quibbling over semantics, critics of this bill show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands.

The politician’s reply to the opponents of the wetlands-protection bill is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?


(A) It falsely identifies the motives of those who have criticized the wetlands-protection bill with the motives of all those who are opposed to conservation.

(B) It does not adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the word “wetlands” determines the impact of the legislation.

(C) It assumes without justification that those who criticized the wetlands-protection bill stand to profit if the bill is defeated.

(D) It fails to provide a defense for a less restrictive definition of “wetlands.”

(E) It attempts to defend the credibility of the author of the bill rather than defending the bill itself.

Simplify the argument:
Politician says that the critics of the bill are playing with the symantics of the word wetlands because they dont care about what actually happens to wetlands and they are intentionally delaying the passage of bill.
Flaw: The politician completely ignores the fact that the effectiveness of the legislation depends on the definition.
A. Irrelevant. No such comparison has been made.
B. Correct
C. The passage only says the opponents do not care. Profit was never discussed. Out of scope.
D. Defence was never offered.
E. Author was not discussed at all.
B is correct

Posted from my mobile device

I think (B) is the reason they are "quibbling" over the definition since it has a major impact on the bill!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.