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

 It is currently 05 May 2016, 21:22

### 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

Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [1] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 03:06
1
KUDOS
12
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:00) correct 43% (01:15) wrong based on 378 sessions

### HideShow timer Statictics

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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
This question might seem very elementary, but I have a slight problem with it. The OA is (B). It is logical, but I'm not sure why (B) is really required if the countries are not bothered whether or not specific damage can be attributed to a particular effluent. Shouldn't (D) perhaps be an option?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by JarvisR on 19 Jul 2015, 00:39, edited 1 time in total.
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 193 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 04:44
sandipan.mondal wrote:
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

This question might seem very elementary, but I have a slight problem with it. The OA is (B). It is logical, but I'm not sure why (B) is really required if the countries are not bothered whether or not specific damage can be attributed to a particular effluent. Shouldn't (D) perhaps be an option?

The question said uniform control = doesn't matter what source.
D says doesn't matter what source. Therefore, D is not the right answer.
B is correct.
Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 97
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 52 [6] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 06:40
6
KUDOS
I also had chosen D. But I might have misinterpreted its meaning...

Choice D said "ALL of any given pollutant...". However, not ALL of the pollutant of one kind need to reach the North Sea to pollute the envinroment. "A fraction of a pollutant" can still cause the pollution. Thus, not a good piece of information.

Had the choice D said "Any fraction of given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present", this would have made this choice a viable answer. Do you guys agree?
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2007
Posts: 186
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 06:47

but was confused after reading the posts !! :D

@TriColor tks for clearing it up !!

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 10:05
sandipan.mondal wrote:
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

This question might seem very elementary, but I have a slight problem with it. The OA is (B). It is logical, but I'm not sure why (B) is really required if the countries are not bothered whether or not specific damage can be attributed to a particular effluent. Shouldn't (D) perhaps be an option?

A: irrelevant.
C: Irrelevant
E: Irrelevant.

D: this choice is tempting, but doesn't really say establish why controls would be overly restrictive. Its a good contendor but B is much better.

B.
Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 12:04
Thanks!

TriColour - Yeah, you're right. I should have read the choice carefully. Sigh!
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2011, 04:20
I had a unique issue with this question. I assumed that 'What must, of course, be shown' implied that the reader/I needed to find a reason (negative assumption) that will make the countries to avoid excessively resistive controls. B and D are irrelevant with this angle. Hence, I went with C as the closest.

Only after reading the explanation, realized that it is a suggestion (a guideline) for the process so as to avoid excessively resistive controls.. B clearly wins ( probably that's why the 'of course' was included in the question)

I still feel there are two angles (author's and reader's) to understand this question. Not sure why I should choose one over the other.
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 38

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

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2011, 16:29
B is my pick.
_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MGMAT 6 650 (51,31) on 31/8/11
MGMAT 1 670 (48,33) on 04/9/11
MGMAT 2 670 (47,34) on 07/9/11
MGMAT 3 680 (47,35) on 18/9/11
GMAT Prep1 680 ( 50, 31) on 10/11/11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CR notes
http://gmatclub.com/forum/massive-collection-of-verbal-questions-sc-rc-and-cr-106195.html#p832142
http://gmatclub.com/forum/1001-ds-questions-file-106193.html#p832133
http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-critical-reasoning-collection-106783.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html?hilit=chineseburned

Manager
Status: Retaking next month
Affiliations: None
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 229
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V27
GPA: 3.01
WE: Sales (Manufacturing)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 42

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

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2011, 02:53
catfreak wrote:
B is my pick.

I am confused between B & D. Can somebody pls split open these two options.
Director
Status: Gonna rock this time!!!
Joined: 22 Jul 2012
Posts: 547
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q43 V34
GMAT 2: 630 Q47 V29
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 562

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

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2012, 03:59
what kinda of question is this? strengthen?
_________________

hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.

Who says you need a 700 ?Check this out : http://gmatclub.com/forum/who-says-you-need-a-149706.html#p1201595

My GMAT Journey : end-of-my-gmat-journey-149328.html#p1197992

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 211
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 348

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

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2013, 01:02
Can anyone explain the reason behind choosing B?
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 431
Location: India
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 336 [1] , given: 14

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

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2013, 01:30
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
sandipan.mondal wrote:
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

This question might seem very elementary, but I have a slight problem with it. The OA is (B). It is logical, but I'm not sure why (B) is really required if the countries are not bothered whether or not specific damage can be attributed to a particular effluent. Shouldn't (D) perhaps be an option?

Now what makes the author say this: "What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that".

It is because of this: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.

The "whether or not" in the above suggests that the controls could be excessive.

So to avoid the excessive controls we need to show that "any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage" which is choice B.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom Courses in Chennai

Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 900
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 777 [0], given: 543

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

### Show Tags

14 May 2013, 07:15
Tricky one! can anyone help out...
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 44
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 75 [11] , given: 3

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

### Show Tags

14 May 2013, 10:05
11
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fozzzy wrote:
Tricky one! can anyone help out...

Argument:
Most participants favoured uniform controls on the quality on effluents in conference on environmental threats to the North Sea. This irrespective of the fact whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent.

Pre thinking:
Most participants wants the quality control will happen on all effluents irrespective of the fact whether any environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. So to avoid excessively restrictive controls only those effluents which cause environmental damage should be controlled.

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
Incorrect: Irrelevant as talks about delay and not excessively restrictive controls.

(B) Any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
Correct: this will make sure that only those substances which damage environment will be subjected to control thus preventing control on effluents which are not damaging to environment.

(C) the countries favouring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
Incorrect: Irrelevant .No relation with effluent causing damage and excessively restrictive controls.

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
Incorrect: pollutant damaging North Sea is the problem even if not all of it reached the sea.

(E) Environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
Incorrect: Irrelevant. Argument is about managing the effluent to prevent any environmental damage in future.
_________________

Manager
Joined: 13 Jul 2013
Posts: 75
GMAT 1: 570 Q46 V24
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 21

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

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2013, 07:02
I cannot understand the argument.

What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

^^ what exactly do the author mean by this?
Intern
Joined: 13 Jun 2013
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 29

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2014, 18:37
theGame001 wrote:
I cannot understand the argument.

What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

^^ what exactly do the author mean by this?

What must be true so that there is not excessive control. Meaning only those substances that actually pollutes the env should be controlled. Hence B
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2014
Posts: 106
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 6

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

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2014, 19:45
theGame001 wrote:
I cannot understand the argument.

What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

^^ what exactly do the author mean by this?

The argument says that
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.

So they may start controlling effluents that may not cause env damage. This is the excessive control that author is referring to.
B says that the countries should verify whether the substance can cause damage before subjecting it to controls.
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 8

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

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2014, 21:11
What type of cr question is this ?
Can anyone elucidate the answer based on power score cr bible ?

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

Last edited by WoundedTiger on 19 Aug 2014, 01:51, edited 1 time in total.
Topic name not correct
Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 181
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 83

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

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2014, 21:13
So there are 100 items. The quality of 50 effluents restricted to lets say 20% concentration. Now what does 'excessive restriction' mean? quality reduced to 10% concentration of those 50 effluents OR restriction now applied to 80 (instead of 50) effluents?

Please advise on how to decide where the restriction means the restriction on quality or restriction on number of effluents?
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 197
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V33
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 59 [1] , given: 45

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

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2015, 02:58
1
KUDOS
Question is asking us "What will remove drawback "Excessive Restriction" from the plan "Restricting effluents to save north sea"

Argument :
Nation agrees - Block everything (Effluent) from entering north sea, irrespective of the nature (Whether harmful or harmless) of effluents.

Let's take some real life example.
To decrease deaths due to road accident , Stop every vehicle on road. , Now if i ask one what is your reaction to this, he/she will say "police intention is good but it may bring trouble to innocent people. Police should stop only heavy/harmful vehicle"

Exactly in same line we need to think. We need to find option, which can remove drawback from plan

POE.
(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay

That can be deployed, but it will not avoid excessive restriction.

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage

Yes, if they don't damage and still if nation blocks then it will be consider as excessive restriction. (Same as we thought above) - Make sense - Keep it aside.

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents

That is Ok, Nations need to save north sea, irrespective of the share of pollution of each nation - Out of scope

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

we need to think what will impact once plan is implemented - out of scope

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

if it is reversible, then probably we dont this restriction. So it does not answer the question in plate.
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North   [#permalink] 08 Sep 2015, 02:58

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North 0 18 Aug 2014, 21:11
20 At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North 5 19 Jan 2012, 10:20
13 At a recent meeting on enviromental threats off the coast of 4 03 Jul 2011, 10:13
A recent report on an environmental improvement program was 4 05 Jun 2009, 10:05
13 A recent report on an environmental improvement program was 18 19 May 2009, 00:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North

 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®.