|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 279
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 9
|
Just a few years ago salmon could not survive in the oxygen [#permalink]
 19 Jul 2011, 05:01
Just a few years ago salmon could not survive in the oxygen-starved and polluted Thames. Nor could many other species. But now, after years of determined effort, the salmon have returned, and that is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free.
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon.
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.
None of the answer choice made sense to me..pls help me understand the reasoning behind every answer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Math Forum Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 2100
Followers: 108
Kudos [?]:
655
[0], given: 376
|
DeeptiM wrote: Just a few years ago salmon could not survive in the oxygen-starved and polluted Thames. Nor could many other species. But now, after years of determined effort, the salmon have returned, and that is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free.
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
Argument: Pollution is removed completely; 100%
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants.
Pollution exists; Salmon is of different type.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive.
Pollution NOT completely removed maybe 80% but NOT 100%.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon.
This is giving us a cause why Salmons died; it is not telling us anything about the present state of the river, neither is it telling us about the salmons that returned.
In a way this fact strengthens the reasoning that now there is abundant oxygen because of 0 pollution and thus Salmon survive.
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain.
Out of 100 pollutants; 1 killer pollutant gone and Salmons are back. This doesn't make river pollution free.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.
Pollution still there but in a different form
None of the answer choice made sense to me..pls help me understand the reasoning behind every answer...
_________________
~fluke
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 238
Location: India
WE 1: 3.75 IT
WE 2: 1.0 IT
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 5
|
DeeptiM wrote: Just a few years ago salmon could not survive in the oxygen-starved and polluted Thames. Nor could many other species. But now, after years of determined effort, the salmon have returned, and that is a sure sign that the river is pollution-free.
Each of the following indicates a possible flaw in the reasoning in the passage above EXCEPT:
Argument: River is Pollution Free.
(A) The salmon that have returned may be of a strain that is unaffected by the pollutants.
Pollution Still exists, so indicates a flaw.
(B) The pollution may have been reduced to a level at which the salmon can survive.
Pollution reduced but Still exists, so indicates a flaw.
(C) Oxygen starvation is often a consequence of pollution, and this may have killed the salmon.
Doesn't say anything w.r.t to Pollution presently in river. Hence not indication any flaw. Logical opposite!!
(D) The salmon may have been killed by one particular pollutant, which has now been removed while others remain.
One pollutant removed but Pollution Still exists, so indicates a flaw.
(E) There may still be pollution, but its nature may have changed to a form that salmon can tolerate.
Pollution Still exists in a different form, so indicates a flaw.
_________________
Cheers,
Varun
If you like my post, give me KUDOS!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Posts: 216
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
28
[0], given: 7
|
Clear C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 279
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 9
|
OA is C...thanks guys!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 164
Location: Banaglore
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 8
|
+1 C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 709
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 37
|
C for me as well.
Crick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
