Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the

Question

Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the fragile ozone layer in the Earth's upper atmosphere used a spacecraft to conduct crucial experiments. These experiments drew criticism from a group of environmentalists who observed that a single trip by the spacecraft did as much harm to the ozone layer as a year's pollution by the average factory, and that since the latter was unjustifiable so must be the former.

The reasoning in the environmentalists' criticism is questionable because it:

A. Treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect
B. Justifies generalization on the basis of a single instance
C. Fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from preventing those harmful effects
D. Attempts to compare two quantities that are not comparable in any way
E. Presupposes that experiments always do harm to their subjects

nightblade354 · Accepted Answer

Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the fragile ozone layer in the Earth's upper atmosphere used a spacecraft to conduct crucial experiments. These experiments drew criticism from a group of environmentalists who observed that a single trip by the spacecraft did as much harm to the ozone layer as a year's pollution by the average factory, and that since the latter was unjustifiable so must be the former.

Simple argument here: We are told that one thing is unjustifiable because it is similar to another harmful, somewhat analogous idea. But it fails in one, big respect: one is helpful in trying to prevent or identify the issue at hand, and the other just contributes to the issue. So they are not 100% analogous. Let's try and find an answer that, hopefully, hits on this issue. 
 
The reasoning in the environmentalists' criticism is questionable because it:

A. Treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect --  Almost word for word what we need. They are not analogous because one can improve the situation. Bingo!

B. Justifies generalization on the basis of a single instance --  Let's break this down, quickly. The generalization is that the rocket is bad because of the one example, which is an average. So this isn't one instance. Out.

C. Fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from preventing those harmful effects --  This talks about the mission itself. And sure, technically this isn't talked about. But this isn't our issue. Just because this is technically true, does not mean that this is what is at fault in our argument. If I say baseball player A is the best baseball player in the world, and someone else says it is player B, we are disputing who is better. If someone says, "no wait, player C is better than A and B", this doesn't resolve anything in our original argument, just like this comment doesn't resolve the issue. We are looking at two causes of pollution. This is the heart of our argument.

D. Attempts to compare two quantities that are not comparable in any way --  We're talking about the same type of pollution. Out.

E. Presupposes that experiments always do harm to their subjects --  So a science experiment in a high school is causing issues? Nope. Nowhere is this said, so out.

mykrasovski · Answer

Can someone help understand why A is better than C?

A says that environmentalists treat as similar two cases that are different in their essence. Good option.

However, option C says that environmentalists fail to distinguish the goal of reversing bad effects (what scientists aim to do) from preventing those effects (what environmentalists aim to do). This is also true according to the passage.

komalpatna · Answer

Option A only logically gives questionable reasoning. Option C does not clearlly states what it is trying to say. So answer is Option A.

Mizar18 · Answer

A. Treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect

Sure, environmentalists treat two cases of affecting the ozone layer, omitting a critical respect, the goals of each one.

C. Fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from preventing those harmful effects

The environmentalists think that is unjustifiable to do damage to the ozone layer, this is what really matters for them, so it is not really that they fail to distinguish the goal of the experiment but that they did not even consider the experiments possible to do given that it is doing harm to the ozone layer. Incorrect

bidskamikaze · Answer

Options A and C are the two contenders.

C. Fails to distinguish  the goal  of reversing harmful effects from preventing those harmful effects
How could we say that the environmentalists have failed to distinguish the  GOAL  of reversing harmful effects from preventing those harmful effects? They know the goal of the space mission; Their argument is that it is comparable to the factory with respect to the pollution it created.

A. Treats as similar two cases that are different in  a critical respect 
Correct choice. The space mission will collect crucial data that will help the scientists; a factory will only create the problem they are trying to solve.

Sans8 · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATNinja   AndrewN 
Please help me in understanding Why A is better than C?

PyjamaScientist · Answer

The flaw in C is that it presupposes that the goal of the spacecraft is to reverse the ozone damage. But that's not the case here, the goal was to "understand the damage", so that's why C got it wrong. If you read closely, the flaw resides in the assumption that the nature of both aircraft survey and factory is same. Two cases, though both damage ozone, are critically different. One is to "understand the ozone depletion", whereas the other is not concerned with the depletion in any whatsoever. Thus different in critical respect. 
Hope it helps.

ohhno · Answer

Yes,  A is correct . Let's understand exactly why.
What are the environmentalists arguing?
Their argument is essentially:
 
  Spacecraft experiment:  One spacecraft trip damages the ozone layer as much as  one year's pollution from an average factory . 
  Factory pollution:  Factory pollution is unjustifiable. 
 Therefore,  the spacecraft experiment is also unjustifiable .  
The flaw is in assuming that because the  amount of damage is similar , the two activities are morally/ practically equivalent.
Why is that questionable?
The two cases are  critically different in purpose :
 
 🏭  Factory pollution:  The pollution is an unwanted harmful byproduct of industrial activity. 
 🚀  Spacecraft experiment:  The ozone damage is a harmful side effect of an experiment whose  purpose is to understand and eventually reverse damage to the ozone layer .  
So, even if both cause the same amount of ozone damage, the  reason for causing the damage and the potential benefit  are completely different.
That's exactly what  A  says:
 
Why not C?
 C says:  "Fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from preventing those harmful effects."
But that's not the main issue. The argument doesn't really compare  reversing vs. preventing . It compares  the spacecraft experiment with factory pollution  and concludes that because one is unjustifiable, the other must be too.
The critical difference is the  purpose and potential benefit of the spacecraft experiment , which makes  A  the better description.
🎯 GMAT takeaway
This is a classic  false analogy  question.
 
Therefore:
A\boxed{	ext{A}}

Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to 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

Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to 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