Most forests in Canada

beater · Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: Most forests in Canada

A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.”
Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics’ insistence that the report’s conclusion be changed?
(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.

Jatinder · Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject:

IMO B

suchoudh · Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject:

beater · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:33 am Post subject:

what is your rationale for selecting B

raunekk · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:51 am Post subject:

imo:B

we need to support the critics..

i.e,“Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.”

B states ...Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.

Thus its a valid reason for the late or no visibility of damage done by acid rain.

thx