Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1806:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join Piyush Beriwala in this webinar as he guides you through a smart study plan to achieve the 99th %ile on the GMAT Focus. Learn the best strategies and tips to master the test and boost your score.
May 1610:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Save BIG with Magoosh! 50% off all study plans with code PREVAIL50 - Expires Monday 5/19
May 1706:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
We know Strengthen and Weaken questions account for more than 50% of the CR questions on the GMAT. With CR becoming even more important on GMAT Focus, it's time you strengthen your weaknesses with an approach that improves your solving time and accuracy!
May 2411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn –1. Learn effective reading strategies 2.Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence 3.Excel in timed test environment
May 2408:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-05:30 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight fair, the biggest MBA fair of the year. You will have a chance to hear Admissions directors from almost every Top 20 program speak, network with peers, and conveniently attend morning or afternoon sessions.
Updated on: 21 May 2019, 02:52
Originally posted by GMATBLACKBELT on 01 Feb 2008, 14:00.
Last edited by Bunuel on 21 May 2019, 02:52, edited 4 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 21 May 2019, 02:52, edited 4 times in total.
Edited the question.
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
89% (01:13) correct
11%
(01:37)
wrong
based on 2040
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
03 Jan 2012, 12:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
General Discussion
01 Feb 2008, 14:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
(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
