sritamasia
The farmers of Nomaland allege that Company X's new chemical factory that has been established nearby is responsible for the drastic damage to their farmlands. They say that the factory has led to a polluted environment, the environment that is detrimental to the crops grown in their fields. The Public Relations Cell of the factory denies responsibility by saying that the damage to the crops is due to the presence of fungi and insects in the fields and not due to the factory.
Which of the following most seriously weakens the claim of the public relations cell of Company X's new chemical factory?
A. The factory has not yet obtained all the mandatory pollution-free clearances and approvals from the governmental agencies.
B. The effluents from the factory are a breeding ground for all types of fungi and insects.
C. The factory is a symbol of how crony capitalism destroys the lives of farmers.
D. The farmers have not conducted a comprehensive study on the effluents released by the factory.
E. The farmers are facing time crunches due to trade union strikes.
I read the question and see that this is a weaken question. Specifically I'm weakening the company's PR claim.
I deconstruct the argument. I get there are two points of view, here: the company IS responsible for the damage to farmlands, or that the company is NOT. The PR for the company says that it is fungi and insects that are harming the farms, and therefore they are blameless.
Now I step back and I reflect on the argument. How do I weaken the PR claim? Well, on the one hand, it would weaken the argument to show, "Nope, it's not fungi and insects!" Though, admittedly, that doesn't seem very GMAT-like. The GMAT likes us to be as generous as possible with the premises. So I'm thinking "You're right, PR-dude, it *is* fungi and insects that are harming the farmlands... but the fungi and insects are the factory's fault!"
"The accident isn't my fault! I didn't hit your car, the car I *hit* hit your car!"
"...Nice try, bud."
So I go to my answer choice, and though B uses a $10 word I don't know ('effluents'), it clearly says that the 'something' from the factory helps fungi and insects breed.' So, that seems to imply the factory is spurring on the insects and fungi.
A. is wrong because while the factory is not up-to-code, that alone does not mean they are causing the harm.
C. is wrong because it's just a fiery opinion without evidence.
D. is wrong for similar reasons as A.
E. is wrong because the pressures of the farmers have no bearing on whether the chemical plant is harming their land.