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

I will also go with B. The conclusion is already conditional "provided this technology is effective....". Hence, C does not do any value add.

I would go with B.
I used Assumption negation technique and find out both B and C are attractive. however B looks more attractive to me as B fills the gap
_________________

Always tag your question

C for me.

agree with B.
_________________

Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning

bigfernheard,

You are consistenent in choosing the Answers, but unfortunately both are incorrect.

Option C in the original question (Priyankumar posted) and Optiion B ( in GMAT PREP posted by you) are same. Both are wrong.


here B is the correct answer.


Option C --> in GMATPRE is totall differrent, and agree with that answer.
_________________

Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning

But...although remnant pollution were stirred to the water...the technology could prevent any danger, could not?
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

+1 B

noboru, could you elaborate more your question, please?

Thanks!
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Why is A opted out , how does one know that industrail development effects are not being taken into consideration here ??
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

I go for B after careful reconsideration.

The conclusion should be:
Because the techology of preventing leaking is effective, there is no need to worry about any polution.

However, B provide another consideration may weaken the conclusion. The oil construction itself may cause pollution.

While C, at first glance looks good, but dont you think it kind of deny the premise of the passage. The passage believe the effectiveness of the technology.