Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 02:44 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 02:44

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

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.

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

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
VP
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 1150
Own Kudos [?]: 1737 [13]
Given Kudos: 0
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4448
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [6]
Given Kudos: 130
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 31
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 697
Own Kudos [?]: 535 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
Director
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 547
Own Kudos [?]: 298 [1]
Given Kudos: 8
Location: Oxford
Schools:Oxford'10
Q49  V37
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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 wrote:
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
Current Student
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1212
Own Kudos [?]: 349 [1]
Given Kudos: 12
Schools:Chicago Booth '11
Q50  V38
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 404
Own Kudos [?]: 1832 [3]
Given Kudos: 370
GPA: 3.5
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
1
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bumping for review and further discussion*.

Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2018
Posts: 153
Own Kudos [?]: 434 [0]
Given Kudos: 80
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
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?
Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2022
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
1
Kudos
mikemcgarry wrote:
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 (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

I don’t really understand. Do the Choice B just paraphrase the argument?
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Posts: 63
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 163
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
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
Re: A report on acid rain concluded, Most forests in Canada are not being [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts