[quote="rdg"]Planners in City X noticed that many of the trees in the city were dying because of exposure to increased levels of air and water pollution. A study they commissioned revealed that sycamore trees actually thrive in environments with elevated levels of carbon monoxide, the main pollutant emitted by automobiles. In order to reverse the trend of dying trees, the city adopted a policy to replace all sick trees with sycamore trees.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the logic employed by the city planners?
A) In the forest, oak trees live an average of 70 years while sycamore trees only live for an average of 50 years.
B) Automobile manufacturers are developing newer car models that emit significantly fewer pollutants.
C) A survey by Urban Forests found that the sycamore is the most common tree in American cities.
D) The city recently installed low exhaust buses for its public transportation system.
E) Sycamore trees are extremely sensitive to sulfur dioxide, the main component of acid rain.[/quote]
My Answer: E
Assumption is that sick trees are not Sycamore and the new trees will be able to withstand both air and water pollution. Sycamore is good against air pollution. Acid rain is water pollution and Sycamore is sensitive to it.
We need to prove why Sycamores are not correct choice.
A we dont know if oak will withstand air and water pollution in cities
B It will reduce air pollution not water pollution
C You cant apply a generic statement to a specific city.
D same logic as B
E Looks most promising - though not sure