CR: air pollutants : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 07:28

### 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

# CR: air pollutants

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 447
Location: India
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 396 [1] , given: 14

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 17:28
1
KUDOS
Archit143 wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
Its clearly asked in the question that we have to undermine both.....hence there cannot be any compromise with undermining just one.
I think C undermines best as it says there was no export hence a potential foreign country market remains unexploited which leads to weakening in terms of economics.
Second Its clearly stated that even the new cars also cause pollution and hence there is no reason to think that these new cars which will be sold only in the home county will not spread pollution.
Hence i think option C finds a mid way pathway to weaken both. we must not forget an option need not weaken 100% .....
E IMO cannot be an option as it is specifically mentioned in the question that we have to weaken both the aims not just. We cannot rephrase the question as we like.

Dear Archit143,

Tell me what does the following mean?

It is not likely that both of the aims will be met.

Hi
Its clear enough "It is not likely that both of the aims will be met...".
Moreover the question asks to select an option that weaken both aims of the plan.....

I understand the source of confusion. Consider the sentence: It is likely that he understands both English and French, and consider the sentence: It is not likely he understands both English and French.

Does not the second sentence imply that he probably understands only one of them?

In general when you negate something that refers to two things or persons, you imply that only one of them is referred to.
_________________

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

Classroom and Online Coaching

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 70

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 17:37
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?
The question stem states which of the following will show that if planned incentive is implemented both the cited aims will be met.....Even if neglect the if part it comes out to be Which of the following will weaken the planned incentive to achieve both of its goals.
How can than we rephrase from our comfort and say it just says to weaken one of the goal
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 447
Location: India
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 396 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 18:29
Archit143 wrote:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?
The question stem states which of the following will show that if planned incentive is implemented both the cited aims will be met.....Even if neglect the if part it comes out to be Which of the following will weaken the planned incentive to achieve both of its goals.
How can than we rephrase from our comfort and say it just says to weaken one of the goal

Ok, I will keep it simple. What does "not both" mean?

Does it mean:

(1) neither
or
(2) only one of them
_________________

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

Classroom and Online Coaching

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 447
Location: India
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 396 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 18:48
Archit143 wrote:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?
The question stem states which of the following will show that if planned incentive is implemented both the cited aims will be met.....Even if neglect the if part it comes out to be Which of the following will weaken the planned incentive to achieve both of its goals.
How can than we rephrase from our comfort and say it just says to weaken one of the goal

Also to mean "none of the two aims will be achieved" , we use neither of the two and not both.
_________________

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

Classroom and Online Coaching

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 175

Kudos [?]: 1335 [0], given: 62

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 04:54
Agree with you Sri.
Moreover, apart from E, none of the answer choices seem even close being the answer.
_________________
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10536
Followers: 919

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

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2014, 18:50
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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 638
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 98

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 80

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2015, 00:55
Verbalbot please bump this Official CR question
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Director
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 924
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
Followers: 93

Kudos [?]: 235 [0], given: 69

### Show Tags

20 May 2016, 04:47
lexis wrote:
Relax with easy CR question.

Automobile emissions are a significant source of air pollutants, and cars over five years old typically generate significantly greater amounts of pollutants than newer cars. In Torinia, which has recently built its first automobile manufacturing plant, most cars are over five years old. Aiming to boost Torinia's economy and reduce air pollution, the government plans to introduce incentives for Torinians to scrap their old cars every five years and replace them with new ones.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?

(A) Without the implementation of the planned incentives, most Torinians who own an old car would be unlikely to buy a new car.
(B) Torinia's automobile plant manufactures car models that typically generate smaller amounts of air pollutants than most similarly sized car models manufactured elsewhere.
(C) The new cars produced in Torinia are not likely to be exported to other countries.
(D) The largest source of atmospheric pollutants in Torinia is not automobile emissions, but emissions from power plants.
(E) The manufacture and the scrapping of cars each generate significant amounts of air pollutants.

Conclusion- Replacing and scrapping old cars will reduce air pollution.
We have to weaken this conclusion .

(A) Without the implementation of the planned incentives, most Torinians who own an old car would be unlikely to buy a new car. What about effects on pollution?
(B) Torinia's automobile plant manufactures car models that typically generate smaller amounts of air pollutants than most similarly sized car models manufactured elsewhere. We are not concerned about cars anywhere else.
(C) The new cars produced in Torinia are not likely to be exported to other countries. What about pollution? The cars are not exported out implies that people will buy the cars and scrap old cars? This strengths the argument instead of weakening if people will buy and use the new cars.
(D) The largest source of atmospheric pollutants in Torinia is not automobile emissions, but emissions from power plants. But, using new cars will reduce pollution by at least small percentage.
(E) The manufacture and the scrapping of cars each generate significant amounts of air pollutants. If scrapping generates significant pollution, then there is no pint using new cars
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Re: CR: air pollutants   [#permalink] 20 May 2016, 04:47

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
19 Advacned CR: Pollutants in Coutnry Y 4 05 Jul 2015, 23:10
Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant 7 05 Aug 2010, 13:16
Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant 2 07 Dec 2009, 13:06
Although air pollution was previously thought to exist 4 11 Jan 2008, 11:17
CR 1000: Air pollution in Los Diablos 5 31 Oct 2007, 22:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by