Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in Melonia

What's wrong with D....

The govt says that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective. So, Govt is raving just on basis of data from satellite and 'D' doubts on its effectiveness. If data itself is not correct than claim falls.

B just says that rainfall was heavy but dosent say whether govt methods were effective or not as no supporting data is given.

We have to weaken the underlying assumption:

Assumption: The the sole reason for the lower deforestation rate is the government programm.
--> Hence we have to find ANY OTHER REASON (which is given with B).

The faulty satellite data may indicate that the prove the government provides to support its claim is wrong, but does not attack the assumption (which is what weaken/strengthen questions are all about).

Cheers,
André

Source: KAPLAN LSAT EXPLANATIONS

why Option D is wrong

(D) would weaken the idea that deforestation dropped significantly this year by
undermining the proof, the photographs, but that’s not what we need to do — we need to
weaken the government’s claim.

Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in Melonia show that last year the deforestation rate of this environmentally sensitive zone was significantly lower than in previous years. The Melonian government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning and cutting of the forest, is claiming that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the government’s claim?

(A) Landowner opposition to the government’s anti-deforestation efforts grew more violent last year in response to the increased enforcement. the oppositin does not have to do anything with the rate of deforestation,out of scope.

(B) Rainfall during the usually dry 6-month annual burning season was abnormally heavy last year.
although this is not a super tight weakener as the deforstation include both burning and cutting but only burning might be addressed here and not the cutting.Cutting might have increased significantly as well.. but this option is better than the rest of the option.

(C) Government agents had to issue fines totaling over $9 million to 3,500 violators of burning-and-cutting regulations.
it provides stats about the fines but it is not a definite weakener as it could mean anything because we dont know how much was the fines year before that and so its not a good weakener.

(D) The inaccessibility of much of the rain forest has made it impossible to confirm the satellite data by direct observation from the field.
this is a potential answer that weakens the source on which the argument is solely based but option B is still better than this choice becuase the government is making the claim soleley on the satelite data and not overall.

(E) Much of the money that was designated last year for forest preservation has been spent on research and not on enforcement.
not a strong weakener as there may be other efforts included that we are unaware of that lead to the change in deforestation rate.

Dear All

While I chose B, am also looking for more reasons by which I could have eliminated C over B. Please review my points and also share what do you see in C that helped you turn in down, compared to B.

(B) Rainfall during the usually dry 6-month annual burning season was abnormally heavy last year. - Strong point that gives another reason that could have been a reason for less destructive activities last 6 months, leading to satellites image showing less de-forestation etc. ( I kept this )

(C) Government agents had to issue fines totalling over $9 million to 3,500 violators of burning-and-cutting regulations - I compared this statement with one of the last sentences in passage which highlighted that government mentioned that activity has "halt -ed" last year due to their efforts/cost etc. Halt as understand is an extreme word to highlight less/ if not complete closure of activities, does not go parallel with huge fine for 3500 violators highlighted. That means activity was still ongoing and a few ( if not all perpetrators ) have been fined as well, hence it' a strong contender to weakening.

I chose B over C , as I found very simple and directly weakens the claim, while as C may or may not lead to anymore interpretations of fact stated. Eg; we are not given any information about any other years data of fine/perpetrators , hence no comparison of decline can be made.

Please can you review and confirm.

Hi, Nice writeup.

while the goernment is trying to curb the deforestation activities through methods mentioned,the arguemtn presents the comment from government as:

" is claiming that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective."

in the above statement if we notice the last verbs used for the subject efforts: are proving

One main interpretation of the statement is that the govt. belives that the efforts are working and not that the efforts have actually achived 100% goals.
And if the above statement is true then that would mean that the efforts are still ongoing.after reading your expalination i understand that you do make a sound point but i would like to mention that,that specific point does not appy here in the current arguemnt and might be more suitable for a more difficult or a more complex problem.

we would consider point C incase no other point was a good weakener but as we agree that point B is a clear weakener so we can strikeoff option C safley.

Satellite photographs show lower deforestation rate last year.
The government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning and cutting of the forest, is claiming that its efforts proved effective.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the government’s claim?


(A) Landowner opposition to the government’s anti-deforestation efforts grew more violent last year in response to the increased enforcement.
The opposition grew more violent in response to increased enforcement. This doesn't mean that enforcement was not effective. Perhaps the govt was able to handle the violence and fewer trees but burnt or cut.

(B) Rainfall during the usually dry 6-month annual burning season was abnormally heavy last year.

The usually DRY burning season saw heavy rainfall last year. This could be the reason for reduced deforestation. Because of rain, burning would have been hampered. Hence it does call into question the Govt's claim.

(C) Government agents had to issue fines totaling over $9 million to 3,500 violators of burning-and-cutting regulations.

Whatever the govt recovered as fine is irrelevant. They enforced the laws and hence issued fines to violators. Perhaps that is why the violators did not burn/cut as much as they did every year before that.

(D) The inaccessibility of much of the rain forest has made it impossible to confirm the satellite data by direct observation from the field.

Doesn't matter whether we can confirm by direct observation. Satellite images show less deforestation.

(E) Much of the money that was designated last year for forest preservation has been spent on research and not on enforcement.

The argument already says: The government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning and cutting of the forest

So we know that the govt spent millions on enforcing and that is what it is talking about. It may have designated billions on forest preservation and most of it might have been spent on research. But we know that the govt spent million on enforcing and that is that. It was what percentage of total designated to forest preservation is irrelevant.

Answer (B)

Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in Melonia show that last year the deforestation rate of this environmentally sensitive zone was significantly lower than in previous years. The Melonian government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning and cutting of the forest, is claiming that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the government’s claim?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.