A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being

Hi, there.

So, in this one, the government makes the claim: "Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.”

Then the environmentalist are up in arms, and want the conclusion 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.”

If person A says, "X does not exist here," and person B counters by saying, "it's hard to see the visible effects of X," then essentially, person B is telling A: "You're wrong; X is really happening, but you can't see it." That is the crux of the the argument of the folks who want to change the conclusion of the report.

Choice (B) is the answer choice that directly address this.

Choice (A) = Not big news. The report said "Most forests . . . are not being damaged," which implies that: some, at least a few, are.
Choice (C) = other countries --- off-topic
Choice (D) = Not earthshattering. Acid rain is happening --- if it weren't, they wouldn't do the report in the first place. The fact that acid rain has been happening to all forest for 15 year is probably agreed upon by all parties. The question is: is it causing damage? That's the controversial issue, which this choice doesn't address.
Choice (E) = Again, like (A), not big news. The report says, "Most forest . . . are not being damaged," which means some are, which means the severity of damage differs from forest to forest. Anything that is already consistent with what's in the report is not going to strengthen an argument attacking it.

Does that make sense? Let me know if you have any questions.

Mike
_________________

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

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.

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

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.

Bumping for review and further discussion*.
New project from GMAT Club! Click here

Quote:

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?

Our critic argues that the report needs to be revised to include “visible symptoms of damage” to forests in Canada. There’s not much support here. His opinion is notably different from the report’s conclusion which states that acid rain damage is not affecting most forests in Canada.

To justify the critics point, it must be that he believes that the report’s assessment of “damage” is different that his own. In more simple terms, it’s like saying: just because someone show’s no visible sign of damage does not mean it isn’t damage. It’s like mental illness and invisible disabilities. Just because it’s not visibly expressed 24/7 doesn’t mean someone is 100% OK.

(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.
Great. More of the “some are” and “some aren’t” answers. This answer choice tells us that some ARE damaged but it doesn’t explain the critic’s point. Also, if some ARE damaged…why would the critic need to explain the “visible symptoms”. He could easily just disagree and say “some forests ARE damaged”. And this is just a repeat of the stimulus. Most are not damaged implies some are.

(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.
Ah, this is similar to our anticipated answer! Hold.

(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.
This answer choice is out of scope. Neither the report or the critic discusses forests in “other countries.”

(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.
OK, this answer choice just tells us that the forests that the critic and report looked at can be considered as a baseline. No justification here!

(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.
I could see someone leaving this in as a contending answer choice….but again, we’re looking at Canadian forests in general. Also, if severity of damage is different from place to place, why mention the in[visibility] of symptoms?
_________________

I don’t really understand. Do the Choice B just paraphrase the argument?