Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
assumption question [#permalink]
05 May 2007, 07:05
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants 2 years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.
Which of the following is an assumption on which argument depends?
A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain-processing plants.
C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take 2 years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nere damage.
I think your answer (C) is correct. If the new chemical could cause the nerve damage, then the former chemical is not responsible, therefore it doesn't take the old chemical 2 years or more the become detectible.
A. Out of scope, we don't know and it is irrelevant B. Irrelevant C. Yes, either the cemicals are not responsible or the new chemical is the source, because the first is not used for 2 years. Best answer! D. Irrelevant, blablabla E. True, but irrelevant