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

 It is currently 27 Nov 2015, 02:11

### 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:
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 20
Followers: 0

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

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  23 Aug 2011, 17:38
crackHSW wrote:
Why is A opted out , how does one know that industrail development effects are not being taken into consideration here ??

A put industry development, which is not relevant.

The whole passage is talking about Oil construction, technology, pollution. We should find some OA mention something related.
Manager
Status: Bell the GMAT!!!
Affiliations: Aidha
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 183
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V37
GMAT 2: 620 Q49 V27
GMAT 3: 700 Q49 V36
WE: Other (Other)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 43

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  24 Aug 2011, 06:54
Agree with B.
_________________

If my post did a dance in your mind, send me the steps through kudos :)

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  17 Oct 2011, 16:40
Agree with b too! Since it already states that the security system works! Assuming that it will not work here is grasping too far! Why wouldn't it? B is a more plausible explanation for why pollution might accure!

Posted from GMAT ToolKit
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 89
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 15

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  17 Oct 2011, 18:03
Clearly B.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 20

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  19 Jan 2012, 05:39
patrickwestoo wrote:
Agree with b too! Since it already states that the security system works! Assuming that it will not work here is grasping too far! Why wouldn't it? B is a more plausible explanation for why pollution might accure!

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Are you talking about the first argument posted or the GMATPrep question? If it is the latter one, the correct answer is C.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Manager
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Posts: 143
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 24

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  23 Jan 2012, 05:50
Clearly B
Intern
Joined: 19 Jun 2011
Posts: 38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 11

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  23 Jan 2012, 13:50
B for me. I used the A.N.T technique and B fit the best. Spent 2:15 on this Q. I knew the answer was B at 1:10 but I reread question stem and answer choices
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
Posts: 32
Schools: HBS, Yale, Darden, Haas
Followers: 0

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

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  24 Jan 2012, 11:56
+1B
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 148
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  27 Jan 2012, 16:25
agree with B
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 20
Followers: 0

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

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  25 Feb 2012, 21:33
I go for B
B is the best when compare with C, B is a more fundamental issue for the problem. When construction itself cause problem, whether leaking preventing technology is effective or not is no longer a main issue
Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 165
WE 1: Information Technology(Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 29

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  26 Feb 2012, 02:23
IMO- B,

Premise- "an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline" and "a technology for preventing leaks is being installed".
Conclusion-"provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless."

Hence the Assumption in Option B-"Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction." is correct.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 45
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.1
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 20

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  13 Aug 2013, 06:38
Minheequang wrote:
Yeah, the same like yours, IMO B

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake waters have become cleaner. 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. 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 industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters --> the argument just mentions about the planned construction of a pipeline, not about any other industrial development. The assumption will only prove that the argument has ground to develop, and is too narrow to provide ground for irrelevant fact to develop too
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction --> Using the negating technique, if there is possibility that other threat can pose pollution to the lake, the fact that new techonology will prevent leak can't help completedly demolish the pollution to the lake. Therefore, the fears are still considerable. hence, Pick up this choice
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa -->Assuming that this is true, but even when oil leaks to the lake, no facts state that oil-leaking is polluted to the lake. So, this is uncertainty
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause --> Negating this choice: leak of oil from the pipeline can cause more than one damage to the lake. So what ??? it does not weaken the argument that the techonology is inffective and that the fears is not groundless. So eliminate this
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 -->
out of scope

But even if we negate A we will come to the same conclusion as (B). I totally agree that (B) is correct but can someone explain me why (A) is incorrect?
_________________

KUDOS if you find it good!!

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 167
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 449

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  13 Aug 2013, 09:31
Down to A and B...Can't really choose between the two..Can someone explain?
_________________

Preparing for another shot...

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 6062
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1596

Kudos [?]: 8936 [1] , given: 195

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  13 Aug 2013, 23:21
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
priyankur_saha@ml.com 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 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. 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: My Take
My pick is B. I do not have OA. Please post OA if you have.

Responding to a pm: Why is (A) not correct?

What is the argument?
The argument is this: Leaks will be prevented so the oil pipeline will not cause pollution.

The argument focuses on the possible pollution caused by the oil pipeline in future, not any other source. The argument also doesn't say that the Lake will not be polluted through some other source. It narrowly focuses only on the pipeline. Hence (A) is not an assumption. It is out of scope for our argument. The argument only says that oil pipeline will not cause pollution. It doesn't say nothing else will cause pollution.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 04 Jun 2012 Posts: 45 Location: India Concentration: Finance, General Management GPA: 3.1 WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities) Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 20 Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink] 14 Aug 2013, 06:31 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: priyankur_saha@ml.com 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 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. 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. [Reveal] Spoiler: My Take My pick is B. I do not have OA. Please post OA if you have. Responding to a pm: Why is (A) not correct? What is the argument? The argument is this: Leaks will be prevented so the oil pipeline will not cause pollution. The argument focuses on the possible pollution caused by the oil pipeline in future, not any other source. The argument also doesn't say that the Lake will not be polluted through some other source. It narrowly focuses only on the pipeline. Hence (A) is not an assumption. It is out of scope for our argument. The argument only says that oil pipeline will not cause pollution. It doesn't say nothing else will cause pollution. Hi Karishma, Thanks for your prompt reply . I agree that argument talks about"leaks". But the conclusion states that those fears would not hold true if the new technique is good. Now "fears" i suppose refers to the polluted lake and decline in fish population. If we negate (A), it will weaken this conclusion and hence could be a contender for correct answer. Again, I am not at all challenging (B) is correct. I just want to know how to tackle such questions on actual GMAT within a limited time. _________________ KUDOS if you find it good!! Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 6062 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1596 Kudos [?]: 8936 [2] , given: 195 Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink] 15 Aug 2013, 22:00 2 This post received KUDOS Expert's post akshaygaur wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: priyankur_saha@ml.com 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 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. 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. [Reveal] Spoiler: My Take My pick is B. I do not have OA. Please post OA if you have. Responding to a pm: Why is (A) not correct? What is the argument? The argument is this: Leaks will be prevented so the oil pipeline will not cause pollution. The argument focuses on the possible pollution caused by the oil pipeline in future, not any other source. The argument also doesn't say that the Lake will not be polluted through some other source. It narrowly focuses only on the pipeline. Hence (A) is not an assumption. It is out of scope for our argument. The argument only says that oil pipeline will not cause pollution. It doesn't say nothing else will cause pollution. Hi Karishma, Thanks for your prompt reply . I agree that argument talks about"leaks". But the conclusion states that those fears would not hold true if the new technique is good. Now "fears" i suppose refers to the polluted lake and decline in fish population. If we negate (A), it will weaken this conclusion and hence could be a contender for correct answer. Again, I am not at all challenging (B) is correct. I just want to know how to tackle such questions on actual GMAT within a limited time. Logically you might think that fear will be "Lake will get polluted and fish population will decline" but the argument clearly mentions the fear as "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." So the fear is that the oil pipeline will cause pollution. This is an important point in CR. You have to focus on exactly what the argument is saying. You cannot generalize nor can you use outside information. Think of it as a debate. Say some people are in favor of constructing a new pipeline and some are against. So both sides are putting their points forward. Now if someone says that there could some other new development which causes pollution, that is out of scope of this argument, right? We are only considering whether this pipeline will cause pollution. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 45
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.1
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 20

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  16 Aug 2013, 05:35
So the fear is that the oil pipeline will cause pollution. This is an important point in CR. You have to focus on exactly what the argument is saying. You cannot generalize nor can you use outside information. Think of it as a debate. Say some people are in favor of constructing a new pipeline and some are against. So both sides are putting their points forward. Now if someone says that there could some other new development which causes pollution, that is out of scope of this argument, right? We are only considering whether this pipeline will cause pollution.[/quote]

Thanks a ton. I finally got it!! Excellent explanation by you
_________________

KUDOS if you find it good!!

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5902
Followers: 606

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  11 Feb 2015, 13:22
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.
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2013
Posts: 47
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 119

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very [#permalink]  19 Sep 2015, 09:34
+1 for B. C is incorrect as in the premise, it is already stated that the technology is effective "provided it is effective", so this thing is already assumed. hope this clarifies.
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very   [#permalink] 19 Sep 2015, 09:34

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 39 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Early in the twentieth century, - Weaken - GMATPrep 1 19 Jun 2015, 21:32
2 In the twentieth century, the visual arts have embarked on 3 11 Dec 2013, 20:29
16 Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very 11 12 Nov 2012, 23:10
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very 10 17 Jun 2008, 16:48
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very 7 12 May 2007, 07:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very

 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®.