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

It is currently 12 Jul 2014, 00:02

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

Because ethylene dibromide

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 156
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 4

Because ethylene dibromide [#permalink] New post 08 Dec 2009, 10:04
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

100% (02:38) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions
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 two 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 the 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 two 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 nerve damage.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1477
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 31

GMAT Tests User
Re: Because ethylene dibromide [#permalink] New post 08 Dec 2009, 11:45
bsv180985 wrote:
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 two 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 the 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 two 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 nerve damage.


answer C
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 228
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Because ethylene dibromide [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2009, 07:35
If it takes longer than 2 years for the damage to be detectable, the argument doesn’t hold good.

Hence the answer should be C
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: PMP
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 37

GMAT Tests User
Re: Because ethylene dibromide [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2009, 07:39
straight C...
_________________

Thanks, Sri
-------------------------------
keep uppp...ing the tempo...

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 340
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 136

Re: Because ethylene dibromide [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2013, 07:06
Hello,
Can someone please walk me through with this problem.

Thanks
_________________

+1 Kudos me, Help me unlocking GMAT Club Tests

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 80
Concentration: Sustainability, International Business
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 2

Re: Because ethylene dibromide [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2013, 08:51
imhimanshu wrote:
Hello,
Can someone please walk me through with this problem.

Thanks



Sure! I can give this a shot.

Ok, this questions asks for the assumption. Lets find the premises and conclusion first:

Premise 1: 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 two years ago.

Counter premise: however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly.

Conclusion: Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

Now, we have to find the assumption on which the conclusion, i.e ethylene bromide was wrongly blamed, is based.
Maybe a diagram will help?

eth bromide---> caused problems
.
.
After 2 yrs
.
.
Switched to another chemical---> problem still exists!

So--> ethyl bromide is NOT the root cause of this problem

Now, lets look at the answer choices: (Remember, we have to focus on the conclusion, i.e ethyl bromide is not the root cause)

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause. Not true because this tells us about the new chemical and a if scenario. But we already know that the new chemical causes nerve damage. Besides this wont help us conclude that eth bromide is NOT a cause for damag

B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain processing plants.
This is too broad to claim that no chemical is safe

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
If you remember the premise, it says that after 2 yrs workers switched to a new chemical. Which means that it takes less than 2 years to detect the damage caused by ethylene bromine. So this is the correct answer choice
Another way to prove this is the correct answer is to negate it. If we said that it takes MORE than 2 years for ethylene bromine to be detectable, then we cannot prove if it was ethylene bromine or the new chemical that caused the damage, since we already switched to the new chemical within 2 years. So this statement is a good assumptio
n
D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
This would actually weaken the argument because if the workers worked, there is no way of proving which chemical caused the damage
E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.
Not an assumption, because it does not directly support the conclusion which is: ethy bromine is NOT the root cause fot the damage.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Kudos if I helped :)

Expert Post
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 462
Followers: 195

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 5

Re: Because ethylene dibromide [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2013, 09:00
Expert's post
It looks like someone was faster than me but since I did this on my phone (while watching my son's soccer game 0-0 tie) I'm still to post it :)
bsv180985 wrote:
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 two 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 the 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 two 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 nerve damage.


Remember that assumptions fill the gap between premises and the conclusion. Here the premises are 1) that plants switched away from ED TWO years ago because ED was blamed for nerve damage and 2) that the percentage of NEW nerve cases has not dropped. The conclusion says that either ED was not the problem or that the new chemical is just as bad. The assumption will connect these premises to the conclusion and will make the conclusion more valid.

A-The argument does not discuss any difference in types of nerve damage only the percentage of cases - out of scope
B-Completely out of scope
C- In order to conclude that ED was wrongly blamed for NEW cases after the change TWO years ago we have to assume that is doesn't take time for these nerve damages to be detected. - correct
D- out of scope - doesn't help us with the source of nerve damage at this plant
E- again out of scope because we are concerned about nerve damage cases and this plant that no longer uses ED.

KW

Posted from my mobile device Image

Posted from my mobile device Image
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile



Re: Because ethylene dibromide   [#permalink] 28 Sep 2013, 09:00
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic Mixed with an equal part of water, ethylene glycol monirjewel 2 11 Nov 2013, 21:01
7 Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate bsv180985 23 08 Dec 2009, 10:07
Just because cstefanita 5 17 Dec 2007, 19:21
not just because robinantony 6 27 Aug 2007, 19:11
'Because of' mahesh004 1 22 Sep 2006, 19:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Because ethylene dibromide

  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®.