Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 19 Oct 2014, 21:12

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused [#permalink] New post 27 Sep 2010, 14:08
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?

A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.

whats the answer ? why ?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Posts: 11
Location: INDIA
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: MBA question verbal [#permalink] New post 27 Sep 2010, 23:13
wats the answer?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 125
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 17

Re: MBA question verbal [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2010, 23:02
pinkRibbons wrote:
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?

A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.

whats the answer ? why ?


Is D the OA???
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2010
Posts: 302
Schools: Chicago Booth Class of 2013
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 194

Reviews Badge
Re: MBA question verbal [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 11:34
Is it A?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Re: MBA question verbal [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 12:05
Used POE to narrow down to C & D. I was inclined towards C, however, D seems correct.

Out of scope. Also irrelevant since there is no mention of any pesticide filtering A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.

Out of scope. Nothing mentioned about fund allocation B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.

Out of scope. Extend of harm is not discussed since the company has stated (premises) that they dumping is not harmful C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.

Correct. The dumping of unused pesticides is harmless. Therefore, might as well locate the dumping station at a location that has fewer regulations / cheaper D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.

Out of scope. Nothing is mentioned about anyone suing the company E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 187
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 5

Re: MBA question verbal [#permalink] New post 03 Oct 2010, 08:35
pinkRibbons wrote:
A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.


Can some one please resolve the question.
P1 : Unused Pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to aquatic life.
P2 : Pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the aquatic life.

Why does it have 2 premises each exactly opposite to the other ?
I am unable to make sense of the Premises itself.
_________________

Please give me kudos, if you like the above post.
Thanks.

Re: MBA question verbal   [#permalink] 03 Oct 2010, 08:35
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The number of cars produced by United States car companies goodyear2013 2 18 Apr 2014, 14:45
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic During 2005, a company produced an average of 2,000 products enigma123 9 17 Nov 2011, 15:33
7 A light bulb company produces 2,000 light bulbs per week. mbaMission 47 13 Jun 2009, 07:09
A light bulb company produces 2,000 light bulbs per week. ayushi 6 05 Oct 2006, 09:00
A light bulb company produces 2,000 light bulbs per week. ywilfred 7 15 Oct 2005, 12:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.