Last visit was: 17 May 2025, 18:10 It is currently 17 May 2025, 18:10
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Sub 505 Level|   Strengthen|               
User avatar
GMATBLACKBELT
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Last visit: 03 Jun 2013
Posts: 1,140
Own Kudos:
1,821
 [17]
Posts: 1,140
Kudos: 1,821
 [17]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
13
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,482
Own Kudos:
29,902
 [6]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,482
Kudos: 29,902
 [6]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
bhatia_ash2002
Joined: 18 May 2007
Last visit: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 31
Own Kudos:
46
 [1]
Posts: 31
Kudos: 46
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
pmenon
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Last visit: 01 Jul 2009
Posts: 693
Own Kudos:
607
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 693
Kudos: 607
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
buffdaddy
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Last visit: 13 Jan 2011
Posts: 546
Own Kudos:
300
 [1]
Given Kudos: 8
Location: Oxford
Schools:Oxford'10
 Q49  V37
Posts: 546
Kudos: 300
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

GMATBLACKBELT
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. doesn't confirm that acid rain causes some damage to all
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible. speculation is not proof
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries. irrelevant, lets stick to Canadian forects
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years. so? where is the evidence about damage?
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest. BINGO!, this is saying that the severity of DAMAGE differs from forest to forest, thereby acknowleging the fact that damage does occur at the very least
User avatar
terp26
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Last visit: 06 Apr 2020
Posts: 1,210
Own Kudos:
370
 [1]
Given Kudos: 12
Schools:Chicago Booth '11
 Q50  V38
Posts: 1,210
Kudos: 370
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
dentobizz
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Last visit: 12 Jun 2021
Posts: 401
Own Kudos:
1,908
 [3]
Given Kudos: 370
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Posts: 401
Kudos: 1,908
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
anothermillenial
Joined: 21 Jul 2018
Last visit: 14 Aug 2020
Posts: 151
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 80
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Posts: 151
Kudos: 450
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
stackskillz
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Last visit: 20 Mar 2025
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 165
Posts: 63
Kudos: 12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Passage: Critics insisted the report be changed to X from Y.

(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain - This seems to be an extension of the passage, i.e., most forests in Canada are not damaged does imply that some are being damaged by acid rain. Drop

(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible. - Very close to the rationale suggested in the passage by the critics. Keep

(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries. - Standardized the impact of acid rain damage on forest against a global benchmark does not explain why critics suggested a change in language. Drop

(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years - Explains an aspect of the passage, i.e., forests recieve acid rain but don't have any visible symptoms. Drop

(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest. - Again, can be completely true, but doesn't explain the change suggested by the critics. Drop
User avatar
A_Nishith
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 15 May 2025
Posts: 326
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Products:
Posts: 326
Kudos: 144
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7305 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
233 posts