140. 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?
(A) Some forests in Canada are being damaged by acid rain.
(B) Acid rain could be causing damage for which symptoms have not yet become visible.
(C) The report does not compare acid rain damage to Canadian forests with acid rain damage to forests in other countries.
(D) All forests in Canada have received acid rain during the past fifteen years.
(E) The severity of damage by acid rain differs from forest to forest.

ans: B

我明白为什么选B。主要是因为它将damage与not visible之间的关系联系起来。

其他选项我认为是因为都没有将上述关系联系起来，与逻辑主体damage与not visible不太相关所以排除了，但是看了og，却不明白他对于为什么不选其他项的解释。

og的解释：because the authors of the report evidently resist the change being demanded, any claim on which they and their critics are likely to be in agreement can not provide the justification for the change. choice A,C,D,E are all claim both parties can agree on, so none of them is correct.

看了好几遍了，不明白呀，盼解答，谢谢！：）

就是说写报告的不改报告是因为在某点上他们的观点和指责的人不一样. A.C.D.E都是

双方可以同意的地方, 所以不对.