Critical Reasoning

Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.
Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokesperson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matter than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

OA after discussion, please explain your reasoning for the benefit of other readers. Thanks.

IMO A.

Environmentalist counter-attacks the spokesperson by using his argument that snowmobiling generates many visitors and money to the town and pollution could be avoided

IMO A

Why not B, that if not all are from out of town how does that increase the financial benefit?

B just attacks the premise "Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months..". You need to focus on the conclusion and target the assumption. This is why choice A is a better one.

My choice is A.

Business spokesperson is referring to the economic benefit of snowmobile visitors to Milville. This choice weakens the argument because the absence of ski visitors will hurt the economic benefit as well.

I may be wrong but I would go with D.

I would go with D.

I understand the conclusion as " considering the town's economy, it is better to go with the pollution caused by snow mobiles".

From the question, we should weaken the conclusion.

From D, it states that the pollution(industry) is reduced and as well town has seen the economy's growth..

my take is D,

Reasoning: knock out A since it reads only about Skiers, while the stimulus talks about out-of-towners, (skiers can be small portion of people coming to recreational park),

plus nothing is said whether it ski resort for skiers or recreation zone.

I may be wrong, if so ... correct me :!:

whats OA?

The correct answer is definitely choice A.

The Spokesperson is arguing that snowmobiles shouldn't be banned because snowmobiling brings in out-of-town snowmobilers that boost the local economy.

But if choice A is true, the environmentalist can argue that snowmobiles should be banned because, once banned, it will bring in out-of-town skiiers (who will also boost the local economy).

Choice B is wrong because the spokesperson's reasoning (that out of town snowmobilers bring in $) doesn't depend on ALL snowmobilers coming from out of town.

Choice D is wrong because it is a little bit too general and out of scope: snowmobiles' air pollution is not the same as industrial pollution.

Testluv wrote:The correct answer is definitely choice A.

The Spokesperson is arguing that snowmobiles shouldn't be banned because snowmobiling brings in out-of-town snowmobilers that boost the local economy.

But if choice A is true, the environmentalist can argue that snowmobiles should be banned because, once banned, it will bring in out-of-town skiiers (who will also boost the local economy).

Choice B is wrong because the spokesperson's reasoning (that out of town snowmobilers bring in $) doesn't depend on ALL snowmobilers coming from out of town.

Choice D is wrong because it is a little bit too general and out of scope: snowmobiles' air pollution is not the same as industrial pollution.

Hey Testluv please elaborate a bit more on this

E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

Please advise, why option E is wrong?

As per option E, the economic benefit will be reduced if Milville residents do not pay fees for recreational use of the park, so snowmobiling should be banned.

Thanks in advance.