Akela wrote:
Unusually large and intense forest fires swept the tropics in 1997. The tropics were quite susceptible to fire at that time because of the widespread drought caused by an unusually strong El Nino, an occasional global weather phenomenon. Many scientists believe the strength of the El Nino was enhanced by the global wanning caused by air pollution.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?
Quote:
(A) Air pollution was largely responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997.
Air pollution was not responsible, it was a factor that enhanced the drought. The drought could is caused by weather, air pollution only enhanced it.
Quote:
(B) If the El Nino in 1997 had not been unusually strong, few if any large and intense forest fires would have swept the tropics in that year.
This can definitely not be inferred. There could have been other reasons for large and intense forest fires.
Quote:
(C) Forest fires in the tropics are generally larger and more intense than usual during a strong El Nino.
We are only told about the incident of 1997. Any occurrence could have had a very different outcome. We can't say that for sure.
Quote:
(D) At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997.
This was an interesting one. It is a restatement of one of the sentences in the stimulus. That doesn't make it incorrect though.
The reason I rejected this is, I contend, because air pollution is not responsible for the size and intensity of forest fire, it intensified the size and intensity. The drought was responsible for the size and intensity, which was because of El Nino enhanced by air pollution.
Quote:
(E) If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Nino in 1997, then it also contributed to the widespread drought in that year.
This is definitely correct.
I was confused between D and E. Finally chose E.