Critical Reasoning

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.

OA later some discussion

IMO B

(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain. its a fact, not a justification
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible. : True.....Its the justification that damage may be happening but not visible...That is why the word change is insisted
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries. : No justification
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years. : If not and they receive drain only one year, Does it impact. NO
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest. : Not a factor to be taken into consideration

If B is true, the critics are right in insisting on getting the conclusion changed. Forests are being damaged - only the symptoms are not yet visible.

IMO B. what is OA?

A cannot be a choice because it will not provide justification to critics insistence.

user123321

Hi Dhruv,
This is what Question stem wants:--

Refer again

Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics' insistence that the report's conclusion be changed?