Bunuel
rs47
Topical application of oil from the bark of aoli trees, which are quite rare and grow only in certain regions of South America, has been shown to be the only effective means of treating certain skin disorders. At the current rate of harvesting bark for aoli oil, however, aoil trees will become extinct within fifty years. Clearly, measures must be taken soon to reduce the demand for aoli oil; otherwise, fifty years from now it will no longer be possible to treat these skin disorders effecttively.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) One of the skin disorders for which aoli oil is an effective treatment is caused by exposure to chemicals used in a manufaturing process that is quickly becoming obsolete.
(B) The bark of newly planted aoli trees can be harvested for oil within twenty years after the new trees are planted.
(C) The cause of skin disorders treatable with aoli oil is also the cause of certain other health problems which are treated effectively by ingesting aoli oil
(D) In South America aoli tree bark is widely used in making a variety of decorative craft items and utensils.
(E) Only people who live in the regions of South America where aoli trees are found usffer from skin disorders treatable with aoil oil.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The correct answer is (B). The argument assumes that the proposed course of action—reducing demand for aoli tree bark—is necessary to prevent total depletion of aoli tree bark within fifty years. However, the argument ignores the possibility of increasing supply as an alternative means of achieving this goal. Choice (B) provides this alternative.
The passage clearly mentions that at current rate of harvesting barks will lead to extinction within 50 years
It says nothing such as that there would be no plantation of trees in these 50 years
if trees are planted then this option goes against premise of the passage
even lets say passage assumes that there would be no plantation of trees then also a case that the bark can be harvested after 20 years of plantation of trees doesn't help us to weaken the argument as we don't know whether more trees can planted , which can reverse the trend of a possible extinction
please correct me if I m wrong
Posted from my mobile device