At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 18:35

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 360
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 439 [2] , given: 2

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2012, 09:20
2
KUDOS
21
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (02:22) correct 42% (01:38) wrong based on 1124 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition
Practice Question
Question No.: 10
Page: 119
Difficulty:

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
I am confused between B and D. does anybody clarify the wording of these 2 sentences? Particularly option D on what basis we have to eliminate this
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by dentobizz on 21 Oct 2013, 21:10, edited 5 times in total.
formatting for the verbal review project
If you have any questions
New!
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 307
Followers: 521

Kudos [?]: 984 [9] , given: 2

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2012, 14:58
9
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
For answer choice (D), imagine Germany has been dumping mercury into its rivers, mercury which eventually reaches the North Sea.

(D) is saying that it is important that all of the mercury reach the North Sea. If mercury causes environmental damage, then it doesn't matter whether all of it reaches the North Sea. The mercury is causing damage. Therefore we can eliminate (D) based on the word 'all.'

Now let's say, Germany dumps a lot of oxidimide (just made that up) into its river. A uniform control on oxidimide would only make sense if oxidimide is shown to cause environmental damage. This is what (B) is saying - that a substance should only be subject to strict controls if it has been shown to cause environmental damage.

Hope that helps!
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 574
GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Followers: 106

Kudos [?]: 840 [2] , given: 319

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2013, 15:27
2
KUDOS
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2014, 06:13
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.
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 204
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 49

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2015, 05:13
TomB wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition
Practice Question
Question No.: 10
Page: 119
Difficulty:

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
I am confused between B and D. does anybody clarify the wording of these 2 sentences? Particularly option D on what basis we have to eliminate this

Why E is wrong?
If change is reversible that no matter how much restrictions we make,after some time the situation will be same,so there is no need for strict regulations.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2206
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 3: 560 Q43 V24
GMAT 4: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 140

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2016, 19:04
TomB wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition
Practice Question
Question No.: 10
Page: 119
Difficulty:

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
I am confused between B and D. does anybody clarify the wording of these 2 sentences? Particularly option D on what basis we have to eliminate this

got to B by POE.
1. implemented or not, this is not smth we are concerned. we need to make sure that the substances that are subjects of restrictive controls can actually cause the damage to environment.
2. right! if we negate this answer choice, the argument is no longer valid. the opposite of any (1-100) is none (0).
3. irrelevant.
4. reaches or not, the damage is still caused.
5. so what?
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2016
Posts: 74
Schools: Tuck '19
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 112

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2016, 04:47
ChrisLele wrote:
For answer choice (D), imagine Germany has been dumping mercury into its rivers, mercury which eventually reaches the North Sea.

(D) is saying that it is important that all of the mercury reach the North Sea. If mercury causes environmental damage, then it doesn't matter whether all of it reaches the North Sea. The mercury is causing damage. Therefore we can eliminate (D) based on the word 'all.'

Now let's say, Germany dumps a lot of oxidimide (just made that up) into its river. A uniform control on oxidimide would only make sense if oxidimide is shown to cause environmental damage. This is what (B) is saying - that a substance should only be subject to strict controls if it has been shown to cause environmental damage.

Hope that helps!

Dear Chris,

In the argument we're given that the conference is about environmental threats to the North Sea
Shouldn't our concern be regarding the effluents that actually reach North Sea and pollute it? Why is D wrong?
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North   [#permalink] 29 Aug 2016, 04:47
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North 0 18 Aug 2014, 20:11
19 At a recent meeting on enviromental threats off the coast of 5 03 Jul 2011, 09:13
A recent report on an environmental improvement program was 4 05 Jun 2009, 09:05
17 A recent report on an environmental improvement program was 18 18 May 2009, 23:04
54 At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North 24 09 Oct 2007, 02:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by