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 18 Jan 2017, 13:02

### 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

Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 126
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 19:58
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

77% (04:15) correct 23% (01:32) wrong based on 69 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of 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.
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 21
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 20:14
I pick A.
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1731
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 20:38
choose B.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 237
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 23:15
I believe this is an OG question.

B comes close, but even if the pollutant is harmful, it doesnt make a difference to control it if the pollutant never reaches the sea.
Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 38
Location: India
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 03:42
The OA should be D.
_________________

Vipin Gupta

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 352
Location: USA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 04:04
I was stuck between B and D and chose B. But after reading Forrestgump's explanation, I can see why D is right. A pollutant as the name suggest causes pollution. Therefore instead of trying to determine whether the substance causes any damage, it is better to find out if the pollutant reaches the North sea at all.
Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 725
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 07:06
B makes a lot of sense.

B says that they dont want to put control on substances that have no environmental effects.

D - All of any given pollutant ( means how much quantity). means it makes it to the sea but in how much qnautity.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 375
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 09:17
Am I the only person who feels it should be C.

It makes sense to bring in controls for large scale effluents , rather than make it uniform , in which case there would be enourmous restrictions without actually bringing down pollution levels significantly.

HMTG.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 375
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 09:21
Re-read the CR, it should be D.

(somehow I was under the impression that there was a counter lobby to the decision).

HMTG.
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 11:03
seriously is it D or B.?...

B makes alot of sense to me

whats the OA/OE....
Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 126
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 20:06
OA is B
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 237
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 20:40
OA - B ........ really, I am hugely surprised on this one.
Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 118
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2005, 04:30
should be B .
Question asks what should be tru to avoid excessive controls. D actually calls for more controls as it is getting more affected by effluents

B counters this.. T says "any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage" .Hence avoid excessive restictive controls!
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2005, 23:13
This is an OG question.
B it is.
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 16
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2013, 01:30

Only other option would be 'D', but it states to make sure 'all' of the effluent reaches the sea, what if 'some of the effluent' reaches the sea, then it is allowed to happen?

Must be 'B'.
Intern
Joined: 25 Nov 2012
Posts: 7
Schools: Darden '16 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.29
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2013, 18:35
i choose B.

the answer cannot be D because the premise talks about the severity of controls on effluents. One would presume that a control is too strict if it blocks potentially beneficial effluents. Thus, to avoid being too strict, one should demonstrate that the effluent is indeed harmful, thus B. This is the way I arrived at my answer.
Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 12

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

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2013, 23:57
kdhong wrote:
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of 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.

D.

Most countries favored UNIFORM CONTROLS on quality of effluents. --
Question - What must be shown to avoid EXCESSIVELY RESTRICTIVE CONTROLS on quality of a certain effluent ?

To avoid excessive restrictions on quality of any given effluent, there should be a proof that ALL EFFLUENTS reaches the North Sea at present. So UNIFORM restrictions on all should be there. One should not be excessively restricted than other.
Intern
Status: Attending Duke in May!
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 32
Location: United States (NC)
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 18

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

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2013, 22:22
kdhong wrote:
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of 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.

+1 for B. We want to control the harmful effluents and not the non-polluting effluents.

D seems too extreme to me. "All of any given pollutant...actually reaches the North Sea at present." All=100%. This implies that if only 99% of a pollutant reaches the North Sea it won't be regulated. As long as one of the companies creating the pollutant has captured some of it in a test tube it won't be regulated and they are free to dump the rest straight into the North Sea. This is clearly not what the countries are looking for as the North Sea won't likely survive if 99% of pollutants are reaching the Sea.
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North   [#permalink] 16 Apr 2013, 22:22
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North 0 18 Aug 2014, 20:11
33 At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North 6 19 Jan 2012, 09:20
19 At a recent meeting on enviromental threats off the coast of 5 03 Jul 2011, 09:13
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