Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have increased the

Question

Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have increased the concentration of phosphorus in the local swamp above previous levels, but the claim that the increase in phosphorus is harming the swamp's native aquatic wildlife is false; the phosphorus concentration in the swamp is actually less than that found in certain kinds of bottled water that some people drink every day.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it

(A) makes exaggerations in formulating the claim against which it argues

(B) bases its conclusion on two contradictory claims

(C) relies on evidence the relevance of which has not been established

(D) concedes the very point that it argues against

(E) makes a generalization that is unwarranted because the sources of the data on which it is based have not been specified

chesstitans · Answer

I do not understand how to get the answer out of this question. Is there any general way to solve this question?

Aj558 · Answer

C

The evidence provided is not relevant.

Posted from my mobile device

arvind910619 · Answer

imo C 
easy one the two independent event are unrelated c correctly shows that.

abhishek31 · Answer

Hi, can someone explain why D is wrong?

NRJ11090 · Answer

Definitely C is the correct answer choice. In the given argument phosphorus content of bottled water is being compared with the phosphorus content of local swamp. The argument does not mention any point of relevance between the Phosphorus content of the bottled water and the swamp. Aquatic life forms are different from human beings. So, the comparison here is inappropriate. 
A- irrelevant 
B- there are no two contradictory claims in the argument. 
 C- CORRECT 
D- the author simply puts forward his claim and this claim is based upon a comparison between two different things.
E- irrelevant. No generalizations have been made.

rodri102 · Answer

D is incorrect as the facts in the stimulus are not arguing against the harm of phosphorus levels. It concedes with the claim that the increase in phosphorus is not harming the swamp's native aquatic wildlife. However, the argument does provide irrelevant evidence to support that claim. Specifically, the argument assumes that if phosphorus content is at an acceptable level in bottled water, then less concentration in the swamp, makes it acceptable there too. Thus, this evidence is not relevant to the argument. Answer choice C is correct.

vv65 · Answer

D says that the argument "concedes the very point that it argues against"

"concedes the very point that it argues against" 
means 
"accepts the same point that it is trying to refute"

The point the author is trying to refute is that "the increase in phosphorus is harming the swamp's native aquatic wildlife"

The author has not accepted this point anywhere, so D is wrong

He argues against this claim by saying that "the phosphorus concentration in the swamp is actually less than that found in certain kinds of bottled water that some people drink every day"

This info is irrelevant : the phosphorus levels may be safe for humans - that doesn't mean they are safe for aquatic wildlife in the swamp.
So the answer is C

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have increased the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have increased the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards