140
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 abnornal loss of leaves, slower rates of growt, 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.
The key is B. I don't doubt about it. My question is about the ETS's explanation about the wrong choices- Because the authors of the report evidently resist the change being demanded, any claim on which they and their critics are likely to be in agreement cannot provide justification for the change. Choices A, C, D, and E are all claims both parties can agree on, so none of them is correct.
I don't understand why ETS knows both parties agree on those claims. The passage doesn't tell us that information, right?
Pls help me!!
Thanks a lot!
Thank u, leeon !!
so I can say all of them are irrelevant with passage ?
可以看成是无关选项，准确一点说是out of scope.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |