GWD CR- Milville's snowmobilers and skiers

[NYCFox]

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.
B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means.
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.
E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people.

Source: Not very reliable GWD. Supposedly retired real GMAT questions. Can't vouch for the authenticity, yet I find their questions very interesting.
OA: Not Known

Just want to see how people and experts approach this Method Of Reasoning question. This is especially interesting because all options but D seem plausible. What is the nuance that makes just one of the options better than the rest.

Good luck!!!

[muzumdar.siddharth]

I think that the answer is E.

The Milville spokesperson says that out-of-towners coming to Milville in winter months benefit the local residents. The environmentalist contradicts this premise directly saying that out-of-towners are not interested in coming to Milville.

Now if the out-of-towners do NOT come to Milville, then the local residents will not be benefited. If the local residents are not benefited, then the spokesperson's argument of putting up with the pollution is seriously weakened.

Thus, the environmentalist is actually denying that the effect that the spokesperson presents (benefit to local residents from out-of-towners) as having benefited a certain group of people (local residents) actually benefited those people.

Please let me know if the understanding is correct and let me know the answer too. Thanks.

[jnelson0612]

Hey all, we do need an original source for this question. If it is actually a retired GMAT question it is not allowed on this forum by the request of GMAC. Please see our forum guidelines: read-before-you-post-general-verbal-folder-guidelines-t2718.html

[raghuram.konduri]

I will go with B.
Reason: environmentalist is literally challenging the stand of the spokesperson by indicating that the revenue from cross country will start declining as the increased levels of pollution will keep the cross country people away from visiting the place

[jnelson0612]

Hey all, again, last call to identify an original source for this one or we will have to delete it shortly.