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

It is currently 28 Apr 2016, 13:18
GMAT Club Tests

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, a chemical used to fumigate grain

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 154
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 111 [2] , given: 4

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Dec 2009, 11:04
2
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

74% (02:22) correct 26% (01:44) wrong based on 278 sessions

HideShow timer Statictics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1473
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 31

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Dec 2009, 12:45
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: 225
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 193 [0], given: 1

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Dec 2009, 08:35
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: 312
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 37

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Dec 2009, 08:39
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: 335
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 448 [0], given: 136

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 08:06
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 [?]: 53 [0], given: 2

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 09:51
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
1 KUDOS received
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798
Followers: 305

Kudos [?]: 585 [1] , given: 5

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 10:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
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



GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 7355
Followers: 694

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2015, 18:47
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.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 353
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 69

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2016, 22:46
KyleWiddison wrote:
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


Reconfirmation of (C) as correct answer -
Negating (C) :
If the damage effects are detected after two years, then what damages we saw in the last two years, can't be due to new chemical fumigant. It has to be due to effects of ED. So if we negate (C), the conclusion falls flat - note the conclusion says " Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage. "
Hence correct answer = (C)
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain   [#permalink] 13 Apr 2016, 22:46
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain sannidhya 2 09 May 2015, 23:39
5 Because of high prices on grain crops in Mordovia, fields us gmatquant25 6 11 Aug 2013, 00:22
17 Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate bsv180985 24 08 Dec 2009, 11:07
Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical Fistail 3 04 Aug 2007, 10:56
Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary johnycute 4 19 Jun 2007, 22:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.