Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant aluminum refinery that has been built next to our land is killing our plants.
Company spokesperson: The refinery is not to blame, since our study shows that the damage is due to insects and fungi.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn by the company spokesperson?
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowSee the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Unlock the full explanation
Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.
thanks, this one was quick for me. C just makes sense once you see the insects are a symptom not the cause.
same, the wording basically gives it away.
Wait why is D wrong? If pollutants are invisible and odorless, doesn't that weaken the refinery's claim too?
D just says the pollution exists, but the spokesperson already admits the refinery emits stuff. It doesn't connect it to the plant damage.
yeah D is a trap, invisible doesn't mean harmful to plants.
The spokesperson is basically saying bugs did it, so C is the perfect answer because it shows the pollution caused the bugs. Classic weaken.
kinda tricky wording on C but got there. the refinery creating a good environment for the insects is a nice twist lol
What it tests
Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.
Common trap
Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.