Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant aluminum refiner

Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant aluminum refinery that has been built next to our land is killing our plants.
Company spokesperson: The refinery is not to blame, since our study shows that the damage is due to insects and fungi.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn by the company spokesperson?


(A) The study did not measure the quantity of pollutants emitted into the surrounding air by the aluminum refinery. - Ww are not concerned about quantity of pollutants

(B) The neighboring landholders have made no change in the way they take care of their plants. - Even if the neighbouring landholders haven't made any changes, but w edo not know if the refinery is to be blamed. That doesn't weaken our conclusion

(C) Air pollution from the refinery has changed the chemical balance in the plants’ environment, allowing the harmful insects and fungi to thrive. - Correct. This clearly tells us that the insects and fungi are caused by air pollution from refinery. So it is refinery to be blamed.

(D) Pollutants that are invisible and odorless are emitted into the surrounding air by the refinery. - Out of scope

(E) The various species of insects and fungi mentioned in the study have been occasionally found in the locality during the past hundred years. - Again irrelevant

IMO C

wow. closer between C and D but D looks attractive but its not weakning the conclusion drawn by spokeperson. Hence clearly C

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.