Last visit was: 23 May 2024, 11:44 It is currently 23 May 2024, 11:44
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1732
Own Kudos [?]: 5783 [30]
Given Kudos: 3080
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1732
Own Kudos [?]: 5783 [9]
Given Kudos: 3080
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Send PM
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 349
Own Kudos [?]: 313 [0]
Given Kudos: 254
Location: United States
WE:General Management (Other)
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 32
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [0]
Given Kudos: 73
Send PM
Re: Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
Option A only logically gives questionable reasoning. Option C does not clearlly states what it is trying to say. So answer is Option A.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2019
Status:No knowledge goes waste
Posts: 73
Own Kudos [?]: 39 [0]
Given Kudos: 678
Location: Norway
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.3
WE:Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Re: Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
good question, i am also confused why not C. I agree A is ok,but y not C..
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1732
Own Kudos [?]: 5783 [0]
Given Kudos: 3080
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Send PM
Re: Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Hea234ven wrote:
good question, i am also confused why not C. I agree A is ok,but y not C..


See my post above. I think it covers what you are looking for.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 181
Own Kudos [?]: 255 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Location: Peru
Send PM
Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 268
Own Kudos [?]: 269 [0]
Given Kudos: 161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Send PM
Re: Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
nightblade354 wrote:
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


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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2021
Posts: 27
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [0]
Given Kudos: 496
Send PM
Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
KarishmaB GMATNinja AndrewN
Please help me in understanding Why A is better than C?­
Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Posts: 1130
Own Kudos [?]: 1064 [0]
Given Kudos: 629
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Send PM
Re: Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
 
Sans8 wrote:
KarishmaB GMATNinja AndrewN
Please help me in understanding Why A is better than C?­

­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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6936 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts