So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake

B?
B would imply that all their environmental objections are just there to conceal their anti development goals?

Is it C? As it implies that whenever someone opposes a plan they are against progress?


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

IMO B

Negating it: People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed never try to disguise their true motives.
Breaks the conclusion

Hi broall,
Can u please confirm the OA. To me the answer seems B. But the OA is A. If possible can u kindly explain the answer choice A

Hi ScottTargetTestPrep, I solved this question with your approach, took a good 5 mins to understand it. The below was my reasoning. Do let me know if this is correct:

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.
We dont know why and how exactly they disguise their true motives. Here, we are only concerned with the the "so called environmentalists".

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.
Again "people" and "lies elsewhere" is vague and doesnt touch our point of "environmentalists"

Ans choice A solves these two queries.

Thanks

Hi Kritisood.

I think you went too far in saying that the statements don't 'touch our point of "environmentalists."' The environmentalists are certainly people who "say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds." So, the category of people mentioned in (E) could include the environmentalists, and even (B) could be connected to the environmentalists, though that (B) is connected to the environmentalists is certainly not clear.

So, topic or "scope" does not fully support eliminating choices (B) and (E).

What does support eliminating those choices is that neither choice says something NECESSARY for connecting the argument's evidence to its conclusion.

It is not HAVE to be the case that people whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed ALWAYS try to disguise their true motives, in order for the evidence to support the conclusion that the environmentalists are disguising their true motives. Even if such people only SOMETIMES disguise their true motives, the environmentalists could be doing so.

Similarly, it does not HAVE to be the case that, when people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern ALMOST ALWAYS lies elsewhere in order for the evidence to support the conclusion that the environmentalists' true concern is not the bird migration patterns. It merely has to be the case that, IN THIS ONE CASE, the real concern of the people who say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds lies elsewhere.

Now, let's consider choice (A). In order for the argument to work, does it have to be the case that, as (A) says, not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment. For sure it does, because, if it were the case that EVERY time the environmentalists opposed a development proposal they truly believed it to pose a threat to the environment, then the environmentalists would not have been masking an agenda, and so, the evidence presented would not support the conclusion drawn.

Understanding the argument - ­
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. - concern of the environmentalists. 
However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. - Claim that the real concern is "their anti-development, anti-progress agenda." Its as if I give the same reason for every situation, means my real intentions are different. But this assumes that the same reason can't be my real reason. 
Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration. - Conclusion. What should be dismissed? Lake development should not interfere with bird migration. 

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?

The assumption for what? Assumption for sentence 2. The real concern is something else: an "anti-development, anti-progress agenda." 

What is an assumption? Missing premise, or a minimum condition

Option Elimination - 

(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment. - Basically, this sentence means "some were opposed because of other reasons." Perfect. That what we need. 

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives. - the subset of "People whose real agenda is to block development" is out of scope. 

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress. - out of scope. We need to find a missing premise for a claim that the real reason is something else and not the birds. 

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns. - Distortion. First we are not worries about the council, we are concerned about environmentalists. Second at best its a weakener. 

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere. - Restating the premises. Not an assumption.