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

It is currently 26 Nov 2014, 10:29

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

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 664
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink] New post 17 Jun 2008, 16:48
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 664
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 17 Jun 2008, 16:49
Please post your responses with supporting evidence. Thanks
_________________

GMAT the final frontie!!!.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 17 Jun 2008, 17:24
alimad wrote:
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 90
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1941
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 352 [0], given: 1

Premium Member
Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 17 Jun 2008, 20:28
alimad wrote:
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!
_________________

Take a Survey about GMAT Prep - Win Prizes!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1593
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 2

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 18 Jun 2008, 05:01
I believe the possiblity of additional indutrial development is Out of scope.

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

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

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 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."

On review of answers now:

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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 18 Jun 2008, 14:18
OA Please
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 171
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR - [#permalink] New post 19 Jun 2008, 04:48
using A - the whole thing makes sense...
Re: CR -   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2008, 04:48
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
10 Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very nelz007 7 12 Nov 2012, 23:10
3 In the early twentieth century, an extraordinary painter gmatjon 8 22 Jun 2010, 18:36
ilankovitch proposed in the early twentieth century that the millhouse 1 15 Jun 2009, 14:51
8 Experts publish their posts in the topic Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very priyankur_saha@ml.com 36 03 May 2009, 23:03
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very Jamesk486 7 12 May 2007, 07:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very

  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®.