Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 02 Dec 2016, 14:26

### 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

# Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 657
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 443 [0], given: 0

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2008, 16:48
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish
populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lak
waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned constructio
an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish
population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being
installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industria
development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.

B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to
the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be
ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil
from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that
were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
_________________

GMAT the final frontie!!!.

If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 657
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 443 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2008, 16:49
_________________

GMAT the final frontie!!!.

Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 3

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

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2008, 17:24
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish
populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lak
waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned constructio
an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish
population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being
installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industria
development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.

B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to
the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be
ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil
from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that
were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

A- this is out of scope
C - The argument already says that provided the technology is effective.
D - Again kind of a shell game choice, kind of distracting to me.
E - Negating this choicedoes not affect the conclusion-even if they are not the same, they might still be affected by the pollution.

I think B stands out for me. If there are other sources of pollution than the oil leak, then this argument falls through.
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 89
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2008, 17:57
I will go with B...since company's reply to environmentalist is leak proof technology installed in pipeline ,so only concern raised by environmentalist should be pollution due to leakage of fluid from pipeline...
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 981 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2008, 20:28
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish
populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lak
waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned constructio
an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish
population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being
installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industria
development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.

B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to
the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be
ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil
from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that
were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

A should be OA
B is trap!
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 371
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2008, 03:55
I'd go with B. The assumption is that the only possible issue would be the LEAK.

Could you please specify the source of this question. Thanks!
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2008, 04:18
A and b are so close ... how can you decide ? I went with B because it seemed to be closer to the stem than A, because b specifically mentions the construction of the pipeline and leaks
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 371
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2008, 05:01
I believe the possiblity of additional indutrial development is Out of scope.

What do you think?
Intern
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2008, 07:23
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish
populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lak
waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned constructio
an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish
population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being
installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industria
development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to
the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be
ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil
from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that
were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

****
The argument is based on the possible threats due to the pipeline construction not the about the pollution causing sources or pollution itself. It states a fact that the pollution infact declined due to declined release of pollutants from the industries. Hence, we must focus on possible threats - pollution by the leak and threat to fish population as possible out comes of damage to pipeline and assumptions made. The author addresses both the concerns in his argument -

"Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being
installed."

A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industria
development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
*** This can be eliminated as the passage states the pollution declined due to reduction in the release of pollutants as a fact.*

B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to
the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
***This is a possible assumption of the author. *

C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be
ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
***The author state "provided" that means the leak is possible despite the availability of leak proof technology*

D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil
from the pipeline would cause.
***This is untrue, as the author says - "Fears are now being voiced that the planned constructio
an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish
population to decline again. "

E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that
were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
***There is nothing in the passage that says survival of the fish population vary with differences in their species.

Now, upon reviewing the analysis above, the best answer is B, that the author's argument included the assumption that construction of pipeline itself is not a threat.
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 3

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

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2008, 14:18
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 170
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2008, 04:48
using A - the whole thing makes sense...
Re: CR -   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2008, 04:48
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Early in the twentieth century, - Weaken - GMATPrep 2 19 Jun 2015, 21:32
3 In the twentieth century, the visual arts have embarked on 4 11 Dec 2013, 20:29
20 Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very 13 12 Nov 2012, 23:10
19 Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very 40 03 May 2009, 23:03
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very 7 12 May 2007, 07:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by