Gaurav 2013-fall wrote:I would like to add sth here: In this CR, there are two arguments: One by the opponents (peat is bad) and the other by the author (peat is good). I assumed that the question is about supporting the author's argument i.e 'peat is good' and got the answer B. But, on the D-day,I am not sure what would I have picked.

Is there anyone who thinks like me?

David@VeritasPrep wrote:

Gaurav 2013-fall wrote:I would like to add sth here: In this CR, there are two arguments: One by the opponents (peat is bad) and the other by the author (peat is good). I assumed that the question is about supporting the author's argument i.e 'peat is good' and got the answer B. But, on the D-day,I am not sure what would I have picked.

Is there anyone who thinks like me?

AH! I can help you with this...I always get excited when someone asks just the right question and I have the perfect answer for them.

The key here is the hard transition "but this cannot be true..." whenever you see such a transition (other examples include "however, on the other hand, nevertheless, yet" and many more) then you know that everything before the hard transition was written just to be contradicted!

In this argument, the whole reason that the opponents of peat harvesting are even mentioned is so that they can be contradicted. It gives the context for the author to tell us why peat harvesting is okay. You will see this in many CR questions. When you see that you have the hard transition you know immediately that what comes before cannot be the conclusion AND cannot be the evidence for the conclusion! The conclusion and the evidence for it must both come after the hard transition.

reply2spg wrote:Does this CR needs technical knowledge, such as peat. flora and fauna? What is peat?

Opponents of peat harvesting in this country argue that it would alter the ecological balance of our peat-rich wetlands and that, as a direct consequence of this, much of the country's water supply would be threatened with contamination. But this cannot be true, for in Ireland, where peat has been harvested for centuries, the water supply is not contaminated. We can safely proceed with the harvesting of peat.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Over hundreds of years, the ecological balance of all areas changes slowly but significantly, sometimes to the advantage of certain flora and fauna.
(B) The original ecology of the peat-harvesting areas of Ireland was virtually identical to that of the undisturbed wetlands of this country.
(C) The activities of the other industries in coming years are likely to have adverse effects on the water supply of this country.
(D) The peat resources of this country are far larger than those of some countries that successfully harvest peat.
(E) The peat-harvesting industry of Ireland has been able to supply most of that country's fuel for generations.

No OA

Not sure with A or B will go with B

IMO B

Secondly, virtually the atmosphere of two places can be similar but this is not strong enough to say that the consequences or the agriculture would be the same.

None of the answer choice is good enough !