BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

wetlands-protection bill

Expert replies
by thephoenix » Sat May 22, 2010 3:46 am
Politician: Critics of wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new more restrictive definition of the term "wetlands." But this bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do. Therefore, in quibbling over semantics, critics of this bill show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands.
The politician's reply to the opponents of the wetlands-protection bill is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
(A) It falsely identifies the motives of those who have criticized the wetlands-protection bill with the motives of all those who are opposed to conservation.
(B) It does not adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the word "wetlands" determines the impact of the legislation.
(C) It assumes without justification that those who criticized the wetlands-protection bill stand to profit if the bill is defeated.
(D) It fails to provide a defense for a less restrictive definition of "wetlands."
(E) It attempts to defend the credibility of the author of the bill rather than defending the bill itself.
[spoiler]i was confused b/n A and C[/spoiler]
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by gsinghal » Sat May 22, 2010 4:48 am
I will go with C

A says "motives of all those who are opposed to conservation", nothing has been said regarding this perspective in the argument.
Join the discussion

by ansumania » Sat May 22, 2010 10:04 am
but it never says that they get profited......it simply says that they less care......

again in A, has the categorization really been done between 2 groups of critics? I didn't find it anywhere....

OA pl........
Join the discussion

by paes » Sun May 23, 2010 10:50 pm
IMO B

C : says about profit but argument is not saying anything about profit.

OA plz.
Join the discussion

by liferocks » Mon May 24, 2010 12:15 am
I will go with B

(A) It falsely identifies the motives of those who have criticized the wetlands-protection bill with the motives of all those who are opposed to conservation.--no mention about 'all those who are opposed to conservation',it only mentions about critics.INCORRECT

(B) It does not adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the word “wetlands� determines the impact of the legislation.--CORRECT.as the base of the politicians argument is critics are worried about the definition,not the overall benefit of the bill.But is the definition itself has impact on overall benefit then politicians argument will not be valid any more.

(C) It assumes without justification that those who criticized the wetlands-protection bill stand to profit if the bill is defeated.
No mention about critics will be profited .INCORRECT
(D) It fails to provide a defense for a less restrictive definition of “wetlands.�-No explanation offered for the definition of 'wetland' .INCORRECT
(E) It attempts to defend the credibility of the author of the bill rather than defending the bill itself. -out of context.INCORRECT
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll
Join the discussion

by thephoenix » Mon May 24, 2010 12:44 am
grt guys
OA is B
i was surprised at my comprehension level when i saw the OA , i wasted 2 and a half min for deciding b/n two wrong answers
thanks liferosk for the explanation
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working
Join the discussion