Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air [#permalink]
25 Jul 2009, 10:14
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air pollution reached unhealthful amounts and a smog alert was put into effect. In early 1987, new air pollution control measures were enacted, but the city had smog alerts on 31 days that year and on 39 days the following year. In 1989, however, the number of smog alerts in Los Diablos dropped to sixteen. The main air pollutants in Los Diablos are ozone and carbon monoxide, and since 1986 the levels of both have been monitored by gas spectrography. Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Diablos between 1986 and 1989? (A) The 1987 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Diablos were put into effect in November of 1988. (B) In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented. (C) In February of 1989, the Pollution Control Board of Los Diablos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful. (D) In 1988 the mayor of Los Diablos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures. (E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area. _________________
Maybe the more accurate new gas spectrometer allows us to calculate air pollution in a more accurate way, and that explains the differences in the levels. Imagine that the old gas spectrometer was so incapable of make correct measures that those measures are in fact biased. _________________
Maybe the more accurate new gas spectrometer allows us to calculate air pollution in a more accurate way, and that explains the differences in the levels. Imagine that the old gas spectrometer was so incapable of make correct measures that those measures are in fact biased.
It says the new spectrometer was invented, but that doesn't mean it was put into use in this city. So B is "least helpful". But on the other hand, I can say the same thing about D: Yes, the mayor was caught taking bribes and letting industries pollute, but who says they actually fixed the corruption before 1989?
In any case, between B and D, B sounds "least helpful". It's more likely that a city will stop the corruption when it becomes public, than it is likely to immediately buy the newly invented spectrometer... Damege control is always a priority for politicians.... But I digress - I'm going out of scope...
Reason - Though mayor took bribe from local industries to take them off from the polluting companies list but these companies kept polluting the env. Still in 1989 pollution level dropped and doesn't explain why pollution level was high between 1986 and 1988. On the other hand B helps the argument because it talks about new far accurate pollution control measures.