Multiple choice

Directions: For this question, select the best of the answer choices given.

A report on acid rain concluded, “Most forests in Canada are not being damaged by acid rain.” Critics of the report insist the conclusion be changed to, “Most forests in Canada do not show visible symptoms of damage by acid rain, such as abnormal loss of leaves, slower rates of growth, or higher mortality.” Which of the following, if true, provides the best logical justification for the critics' insistence that the report's conclusion be changed?

  1. Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.

  2. Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.

  3. The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.

  4. All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

The critics' revised conclusion is more precise because it acknowledges that lack of visible symptoms doesn't guarantee absence of damage. Acid rain could be causing internal or gradual damage that hasn't yet manifested in observable ways like leaf loss or mortality. The critics' wording accurately reflects that the report's original conclusion overstated the case by claiming forests are not being damaged, when the evidence only shows no visible symptoms.

Keep practicing — related questions