The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is rigorously working on

I kinda get confused between B and E

The reason I eliminated E is that E talks about the species that have intrinsic property of resisting hwa. This means these species were not affected by hwa at the first place. The EPA is worried about protecting the species that are affected by hwa, and thus EPA has taken action to call human intervention (by growers).
This is again just my opinion. Let's see what the OA is.

Hello broall,

Could you please throw some light on this one. None of the option seems to be correct.
Also, How likely are we to see such a question on real exam?

Regards

what will bring growers if they learn how to protect hemlock trees? because the same fungi infected their commercially grown plant n obviously they dont want to see their revenue going down as hemlock will attack commercial species that they grow to sale in market. so growers will listen instructions n will destroy fungi

I see no problem with this question. I think that this question tries to copy the logic from OG question (I dont remember that question).

Hello broall,
The argument is that the steps will have their desired outcome. But, none of the choice here talks about the IMPLEMENTATION of the plan. Just stating that hamlock growers also grow bleeding hearts that is also effected by the virus doesn't mean that the plan will be a success.

Could you please point out OG question that you are talking about. It would be of great help.

Thank you for the quick reply as always.
Regards

The correct answer does attack indirectly the argument by pointing out a reason that hemlock growers would appreciate and support destroying HWA: HWA effects the benefit of them.

There is an OG question like this one: An non-native species that eats other native species in a lake, so scientists try to keep track of this non-native species. Because this species also eats a fish species that is beneficial to the local people, local people will help scientists to keep track of that non-native species.

My bad memory, I can't remember exactly what that OG question is!

Thank you broall for the quick reply.

I hadn't seen such an argument till now, so was taken a back. I guess I will just have to move on.

Regards

Can anyone explain why D is wrong?
As it says, "EPA has conducted awareness sessions for hemlock growers on the extent of damage that HWA can cause and given the growers detailed instructions on how to identify and destroy the fungi."

So D says, trees in the east coast are also affected by E.Coli, So EPA helps is identifying between E.Coli and HWA..

Thanks

sv9, you're right that the EPA has conducted sessions which would help the farmers to identify the HWA fungi. This is given in the question stem. D does not really support the statement in any manner. So what if E.Coli is spreading throughout the east coast? The ability to identify HWA is important regardless of whether E.Coli is growing or not. Our concern is whether the plans/sessions conducted by EPA could eradicate the HWA fungi or not.

Also if the farmer's already know how to identify HWA, they should ideally be able to do even if there are a 100 other fungus present in the east coast. Unless, we're somehow told that HWA and E.Coli cannot be differentiated with the current knowledge possessed by the farmers.

Option B directly supports the plan in the sense that farmers would actually have more reasons to implement the plan. Imagine a scenario where the EPA gave all of the sessions but the farmers didn't actually implement anything.

Hope this helps!

A. Some fungal infestations on pine trees closely resemble the HWA fungi. -- Doesn't indicate that plan would work or be successful. Eliminate.

B. Reports have shown that the HWA also affects another plant species known as the bleeding hearts, a species that is commercially cultivated by hemlock growers in the same area as hemlocks. -- Indicates that plan would be enthusiastically adopted by those in east coast since their commercial interests are also hinged on the plan. Supporter assumption type in so far as it fills the gap that merely spreading awareness would translate into action.

C. The eradication of HWA is likely to cause a serious imbalance in the ecosystem of the east coast area. -- Not relevant to the plan presented by the argument, which we are supposed to strengthen. Eliminate.

D. Hemlock trees have also been considerably damaged by the fungus E. Coli, which is native to the east coast area and attacks trees through their roots. -- Again, irrelevant. We are not concerned about dangers from other fungi. Eliminate.

E. Some sub-species of hemlock trees can resist fungal infestations without human intervention. -- Okay. But is the growing of sub-specie included in the plan presented in the argument? We don't know. Eliminate. Also no one is contesting that the content of the plan IF implemented would not work. The gap in the argument is mostly about implementation. Eliminate.

Got confused between B & E.
TBH I didn't find any correct option here. I needed an option that strengths that EPSs action will have it's intended effect.
Just because reports have shown, it doesn't mean that hemlock growers know about it.
Wonder how they eliminated E. Only some species could fight the fungi without human intervention, so with the plan, using human intervention will help solve the problem of fungi.

A. Some fungal infestations on pine trees closely resemble the HWA fungi.
Pine Trees are not related to the context of the passage. Also the Question stem clearly states on strengthening the objective or the goal of the plan

B. Reports have shown that the HWA also affects another plant species known as the bleeding hearts, a species that is commercially cultivated by hemlock growers in the same area as hemlocks.
Hold on to this option. See that as per the prediction , its not only going to impact the hemlock trees but other plants as well - Bleeding hearts. This clearly gives us a strong reason as to why the plan should be achieved

C. The eradication of HWA is likely to cause a serious imbalance in the ecosystem of the east coast area.
Not related. Even if this was true how is it going to make sure that the plan is reached and hence its not strengthening the argument

D. Hemlock trees have also been considerably damaged by the fungus E. Coli, which is native to the east coast area and attacks trees through their roots.
This gives us another reason because of which the hemlock trees have been damaged and hence its more of a weakener rather then a strengthener

E. Some sub-species of hemlock trees can resist fungal infestations without human intervention.
Not related. Always focus on what is being asked in the question stem. Yes the passage does talk about getting the growers involved and making them aware but it doesn't help in strengthening the argument

Hi Expert,

Hope you are doing well.

I would like to bring this argument under your notice. I am unable to justify how OA for this argument is B. Hence, I am requesting you to explain it to me.

Many Thanks is advance.

The problem with E is that it isn't related to the EPA action of educating the farmers who will then take actions to eliminate the fungi. This option directly says that some trees don't need human intervention for eliminating the fungi. So, it's irrelevant for the scope of question that needs to be strengthened.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.