Eurasian water milfoil, a weed not native to Frida Lake, has reproduce

Hey abhimahna / GMATNinja,

I was stuck between A and C here. I eliminated C because option C talks about aquatic animals whereas the reasoning given by the local officials is regarding their concern for rare plant species.

Option C doesn't weaken the local officials reasoning

Is my understanding correct here?

A as per me. B,D and E strengthen the position taken by officials. Between A and C. A is the better choice!

Would you elaborate Option A?

Eurasian milfoil is weed, not good for lake.

Biologist proposal: Herbicide is non-toxic to human and aquatic life but will decrease population of rare plant species.
Local Officials rejected biologist proposal.

Now I don't understand why A is ground for refusal of biologist proposal.

We are trying to WEAKEN the argument that we shouldn't use the herbicide. So, using the double-negative, we want a solution that proves the biologist wrong. We want to strengthen the idea that we SHOULD use the herbicide.

Does this help?

Option (A) simply states that if Eurasian milfoil if not treated it might damage populations of certain rare plant species that the lake contains, thus damage to the rare plant species/animals is inevitable (Whether we treat herbicide /don't), so why blame the herbicides only for the issue, the weed is also responsible for the damage as well.

I rather term it horns of a dilemma, in either way damage to plants and animals can not be avoided !!

Thanks nightblade354 and Abhishek009 for the awesome replies!

To post additional questions not already addressed in this thread, feel free to use the request verbal experts' reply button.

Hi,
I dont understand how option D strengthening? Is is not out of scope? It just tells us that not using herbicides is possible to remove the EWM but it still doesnt answer whether the herbicides will damage the certain rare plant species.

Reason for rejection: Herbicides might destroy some population of rare plan species that the lake contains.
Option (A) simply states that if Eurasian milfoil if not treated it might damage populations of certain rare plant species that the lake contains, thus damage to the rare plant species/animals is inevitable. Weed also has other harmful effects. So, avoiding the use of herbicides won’t be helpful. Hence, A is the answer.

The scenario in front of us is an interesting one. The weed has spread too much in the lake and can be killed by a biocide, which happens to be non toxic to humans and other water animals, but only harmful to the rare plant species. On this basis or a negative effect of the biocide, officials say that they wont use it.
Now, the official's point of view is fairly logical. Anyone would say agree with them. But if we see clearly, we can notice that only one negative point has failed the other plus points of the biocide. Now what if the weed was so bad that by itself it is harming this rare plant species even more, and no other alternative was available apart from the biocide. Will it be then logical to say no to the biocide use ? That rare plant species would be harmed anyways. One may atleast make the harm less.
Also, what if the rare plant species if it dies because of the biocide, produces better products in water that revive more than one other rare species. In that case, I myself would say its better to let go one and revive two rare species.
Hahahaha

Let see the options :

1) This option says similar to what I could think of, in fact, it says it even more precisely than I could. A possible correct choice.

2) This option tells us that perhaps Frida lake is a better home for the weed. But if that is so, I would actually strongly prefer using the herbicide. But still, the officials would say to me that the rare plant species is going to die. How do I argue then further ? Am I able to justify here that weed growth is bad for the lake. I don't even know here how much the weed is bad for the lake. It could have been a possible answer choice but I feel it still doesn't bowl out the official's reasoning.

3) So some species of animals have died because of the weed. This statement would actually make me push for the biocide, but again, can i beat the officials reasoning ?. Am I able to weigh against their opinion that the rare plant species is also going to die if herbicide is used ? Only if I could justify that animals were more important than the rare species, would officials reasoning stand weakened.

4) So its going to take longer if the weed is removed mechanically . But in this case, wont it be actually better to take more time and remove the weed than to take less time but kill the rare plant species. Do you still think the officials would favour the herbicide ? Surely an incorrect choice as it cannot be a weakener.

5) This option tells us about a scenario in which the herbicide actually becomes a looser because it cannot force the weed to stoop from growing back. It doesn't favor using the herbicide then. Only favors the officials. A possible strengthener and not a weakener.

Correct choice should be A.

Is (E) also a weakaner?
If we stop using herbicide, water milfoil will spread and damage rare plants.
So we should keep using herbicide (as opposed to what officials say: stop using herbicide).

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.