NandishSS wrote:
Quote:
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.
Which of the following,if true, seriously weakens the argument?
(A) The Pipeline's construction will disturb sediments at the bottom of the lake, dispensing into the water toxic pollutants that have settled there.
(B) Changes in the land use and drainage patterns around the lake mean that the lake's waters are increasingly likely to be affected by agricultural runoff.
(C) The leak-preventing technology has been in use for several years without any pipeline in which it is installed developing serious leaks.
(D) A major leak of oil from the pipeline would harm not only the lake's fish but also populations of other aquatic animals and plants.
(E) Since the beginning of the twentieth century, non native species of fish have been introduced into the lake and now make up a considerable proportion of its overall fish population.
HI
GMATNinja ,
mikemcgarry ,
egmat ,
sayantanc2k,
RonPurewal ,
DmitryFarber ,
MagooshExpert (Carolyn),
ccooley ,
GMATNinjaTwo ,
SarahPurewalHere we have to weaken technology is ineffective, there is fear too!!!
How would A weaken?
hey
NandishSS, my friend just would like to share my reasoning
So you have to weaken not the fact that
the technology of pipiline is ineffective, but that
installation of such pipile is ineffective. when weakening argument you need to find a additional reason that will undermine the argument. Yet, this reason should be relevant to the argument itself. look at aswer choices and pay close attenton to key words mentioned in the argument such as
installation, pipilene, pollution So the major concern is the pollution and not the technology.
(A) The Pipeline's construction will disturb sediments at the bottom of the lake, dispensing into the water toxic pollutants that have settled there.
(A option talks about costruction i.e. installation that will cause toxic pollution. this is a reason that can weaken the argument. in other words, it will prove that despite leak preventing technology, the installation will still cause pollution.(B) Changes in the land use and drainage patterns around the lake mean that the lake's waters are increasingly likely to be affected by agricultural runoff.
now look at this option, nowhere is mentioned agricultral runoff, we arent talking about irrigation, we are concerned about fish its out of scope.
(C) The leak-preventing technology has been in use for several years without any pipeline in which it is installed developing serious leaks.
Again C doesnt weaken argument cause it simply provides addittional but not contradictory information about leak-preventing techology.
(D) A major leak of oil from the pipeline would harm not only the lake's fish but also populations of other aquatic animals and plants.
D option just gives infirmation, saying that not only fish but other animals will suffer, but doesnt it weaken the installation of pipiline. it simply reiterates the information given in the argument by providing concomitant information (such as other animals)
(E) Since the beginning of the twentieth century, non native species of fish have been introduced into the lake and now make up a considerable proportion of its overall fish population.
this is just out of scope at all and not worth the discussion talking about species of fish, who cares. we talk about preventing pollution Now when you have examined all options ask yourself which option would you choose through POE ?