Critical Reasoning

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

IMO B

I also think that the OA is B.

I don't think that you need technical or outside knowledge. The GMAT, however, does want you to FEEL confused

So you could substitute the word peat with anything. So you could say "Opponents of apple harvesting in this country..." It will all still work because the GMAT cannot require you to know outside things about peat. In some ways it can be a blessing to not know a lot about something in an argument because you may lean toward "trick" answer choices that seem to play to your knowledge.

Try reading and analyzing the passage again with the word apples and see if that helps.

Do you mean B or A? Thanks for your inputs

barcebal wrote:I also think that the OA is A.

I don't think that you need technical or outside knowledge. The GMAT, however, does want you to FEEL confused

So you could substitute the word peat with anything. So you could say "Opponents of apple harvesting in this country..." It will all still work because the GMAT cannot require you to know outside things about peat. In some ways it can be a blessing to not know a lot about something in an argument because you may lean toward "trick" answer choices that seem to play to your knowledge.

Try reading and analyzing the passage again with the word apples and see if that helps.

Ha!

Sorry, I meant B

Has to be B so that both countries can be compared..

My pick is B....

(A) Over hundreds of years, the ecological balance of all areas changes slowly but significantly, sometimes to the advantage of certain flora and fauna. - no relevance
(B) The original ecology of the peat-harvesting areas of Ireland was virtually identical to that of the undisturbed wetlands of this country. - this establishes that the current condition of the country's land is the same as that in Ireland when peat harvesting began
(C) The activities of the other industries in coming years are likely to have adverse effects on the water supply of this country. - no relevance
(D) The peat resources of this country are far larger than those of some countries that successfully harvest peat.- no relevance
(E) The peat-harvesting industry of Ireland has been able to supply most of that country’s fuel for generations.- no relevance

IMO B

Hey guys,

Nice job here - the official answer is, indeed, B. Choice B links the peat harvesting processes in Ireland to those "in this country" by demonstrating that the environments are similar, so it strengthens the argument (B would work as a good assumption answer, too, as we really need to link the Ireland premise more to the conclusion about this country).

Great point on the fact that the GMAT loves to use technical language to make you feel more confused than you need to be. Whenever I'm confused on technical language - and even as a native English speaker that happens to me a fair amount - I'll just replace it with variables like X and Y. That way, the argument is essentially:

Opponents of harvesting X say that it will alter the ecological balance. But in Ireland, they've harvested X for centuries without any problems. Therefore, we can safely proceed with harvesting X.

It doesn't really matter what "X" is (peat, corn, whatever) - the real issue is whether the logic makes sense.

I'm a big fan of "pay attention to the words you know to be important and don't worry about those you don't know at all". You know that words like "therefore", "however", etc. are always important, so look carefully for those, and fill in details with variables as needed.

barcebal wrote:I also think that the OA is B.

I don't think that you need technical or outside knowledge. The GMAT, however, does want you to FEEL confused

So you could substitute the word peat with anything. So you could say "Opponents of apple harvesting in this country..." It will all still work because the GMAT cannot require you to know outside things about peat. In some ways it can be a blessing to not know a lot about something in an argument because you may lean toward "trick" answer choices that seem to play to your knowledge.

Try reading and analyzing the passage again with the word apples and see if that helps.

Yeah, I feel the same way you do. It has been working for me so far

I liked this one, I thought that B was clealry the right answer. The other responses were all unrelated / unrelevant.

This kind of reminded me of a 'fill the gap' assumption CR question. I thought as I read the extract, that sure the Ireland example provides support for the notion that peat harvesting will not harm the ecological balance of our wetlands - but are the two environments (our wetlands vs. Ireleand) similar enough for the comparison to be valid? Sure enough, B happened to 'fill this gap' or provide the strongest support for the authors argument.

Did you catch that excellent pronoun error in the first sentence?

"Opponents of peat harvesting in this country argue that it would alter the ecological balance of our peat-rich wetlands and that"

In this sentence, 'it' is actually referring to the country arguing, not the opponents.

Sentence corrections aside, 'B' is definitely the best answer as it clears the analogy assumption that the US is comparable to Ireland.

B is the clear winner. I found the other answer choices to be unrelated or irrelevant. By the way, what's the source of this problem?

IMO B too .

answer is B. I guess I'm too late but still

I chose B.