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

 It is currently 24 Aug 2016, 18:48

### 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

# OG 13. Q # 59 Which of the following most logically

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

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

OG 13. Q # 59 Which of the following most logically [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 10:05
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:55) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 21 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

OG – 13. Q # 59

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants released by the Woodco plywood manufacturing plant there. To address the problem the government imposed strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years. Although Woodco plans to cut its emissions in half two years ahead of schedule, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory ailments will decline before the regulations go into effect, since _______.

A.the number of facilities capable of treating respiratory ailments is not likely to increase
B.reducing emissions even further than planned would necessitate decreasing production at Woodco
C. it is difficult to make accurate, long-term predictions about emissions
D.not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants
E.three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston

OA: E

Why is D not the valid answer? There can be other factors as well which leads to respiratory ailments and these factors will only decline after the government regulations go into effect.

Pls help clarify this doubt. I was very confident of Option ‘D’. Was actually surprised to see that this is not the OA

OG – 13, Q # 65

Which of the following logically completes the passage?

Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when pecans are comparatively scarce, but the prices drops sharply when pecans are abundant.
Thus, in high yield years, growers often hold back part of their crop in refrigerated warehouses for one or two years, hoping for higher prices in future.This year's pecan crop was the smallest in five years. It is nonetheless quite possible that a portion of this year's crop will be held back,since

A) Each of the last two years produced record breaking pecan yields
B) The Quality of this year's pecan crop is no more worse than the quality of the pecan crops of the previous five years
C) pecan prices have not been to sharp fluctuation in recent years
D) For some pecan growers , this year's crop was no smaller than last year's.
E) the practice of olding back part one year's crop had not yet become widespread the last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year.

OA:A

Why is ‘E’ wrong?

Option E states that the practice of holding back the crops had not become widespread which means that the crops were sold which means that the pecan growers had no inventory.

Furthermore, the quantity was the same. Hence they will hold back the crops this year in order to gain more profits in future

OG – 13 . Q # 67

Several industries have recently switched at least partly from older technologies powered by fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. It is thus evident that less fossil fuel is being used as a result of the operations of these industries than would have been used if these industries had retained their older technologies.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many of the industries that have switched at least partly to the new technologies have increased their output.
(B) Less fossil fuel was used to manufacture the machinery employed in the new technologies than was originally used to manufacture the machinery employed in the older technologies.
(C) More electricity is used by those industries that have switched at least partly to the new technologies than by those industries that have not switched.
(D) Some of the industries that have switched at least partly to the new technologies still use primarily technologies that are powered by fossil fuels.
(E) The amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount that would have been used to power the older technologies.

OA: E

But the OG does not provide a clear explanation even though they have mentioned that this is what most would expect. Even the right answer has no explanation.

‘E’ states that the amount of fossil fuels used is less in new technologies as compared to older technologies. This strengthens the argument no doubt.

But As per ‘C’ , since more electricity is used , obviously less fossil fuel is being used --> Isn't this stronger than Option ‘E’

Pls clarify . Thanks
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3305
Followers: 1122

Kudos [?]: 4923 [1] , given: 54

Re: CR: OG -13. Q # 59, 65, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 11:09
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
rockybalboa123 wrote:
OG – 13. Q # 59
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants released by the Woodco plywood manufacturing plant there. To address the problem the government imposed strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years. Although Woodco plans to cut its emissions in half two years ahead of schedule, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory ailments will decline before the regulations go into effect, since _______.

A. the number of facilities capable of treating respiratory ailments is not likely to increase
B. reducing emissions even further than planned would necessitate decreasing production at Woodco
C. it is difficult to make accurate, long-term predictions about emissions
D. not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants
E. three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston

OA: E

Why is D not the valid answer? There can be other factors as well which leads to respiratory ailments and these factors will only decline after the government regulations go into effect.

Pls help clarify this doubt. I was very confident of Option ‘D’. Was actually surprised to see that this is not the OA

Dear Rocky Balboa,

I loved your fights with Apollo Creed. I am more than happy to help, but I am not sure if I will have time for all three questions, so I will answer them separately. If I may say so, in the future, I think you would make it considerably easier on your respondents if you posted each question separately.

For this question, we are told explicitly ---- "A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants released by the Woodco plywood manufacturing plant there." In GMAT CR, we have to accept all evidence as unassailable. Here, we are told there is a direct link: airborne pollutants cause high rates of respiratory ailments. It may be other factors cause airborne ailments in low rates, but the government study seems to indicate the the high rate is due solely to the airborne pollutants. The argument is not about all factors that could cause even a 1% chance of respiratory ailments ---- rather, it's about a place with high rates that are unlikely to decline. Therefore, the other factors are irrelevant. That's why (D), though tempting, is wrong.

By contrast, (E) says --- three more plywood plant ---- even if Woodco & the other three each produce half of Woodco's initial rates of emission, that's still twice as much emission as when just Woodco was in town. More airborne pollutants -----> the government's study makes clear, these will cause more respiratory ailments. That's why (E) is the answer.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1975
Followers: 1936

Kudos [?]: 6413 [0], given: 260

Re: CR: OG -13. Q # 59, 65, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 11:02
rockybalboa123 wrote:
OG – 13. Q # 59

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants released by the Woodco plywood manufacturing plant there. To address the problem the government imposed strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years. Although Woodco plans to cut its emissions in half two years ahead of schedule, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory ailments will decline before the regulations go into effect, since _______.

A.the number of facilities capable of treating respiratory ailments is not likely to increase
B.reducing emissions even further than planned would necessitate decreasing production at Woodco
C. it is difficult to make accurate, long-term predictions about emissions
D.not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants
E.three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston

OA: E

Why is D not the valid answer? There can be other factors as well which leads to respiratory ailments and these factors will only decline after the government regulations go into effect.

Pls help clarify this doubt. I was very confident of Option ‘D’. Was actually surprised to see that this is not the OA

Hi,

Quite interesting doubts!

I'll be posting my replies separately for each of the questions to limit the length of my posts.

Let's come back to this question:

Consider this:

Disease X is caused by 3 things: A, B and C.

Cause A leads to 10 incidences of disease X per year
Cause B leads to 20 incidences of disease X per year
Cause C leads to 30 incidences of disease X per year

Now, I tell you that measures have been taken to reduce cause A and therefore, the number of incidences of disease X should decline (since the number of incidences due to cause A should decline).

Can you now say that "No, you can't say that. There are other ways to acquire disease X."

No. You can't say that. I never said that we are going to eliminate disease X. I just said disease X should decline. This is going to be true, no matter how many other ways are there to cause Disease X. (unless of course other causes are increasing, which is not given in the passage). If now, cause A is going to cause only 5 incidences, there'll be only 55 incidences of Disease X as compared to 60 incidences previously.

I have addressed a similar doubt in the below question:

lyme-disease-is-caused-by-a-bacterium-transmitted-to-humans-129950.html#p1187429

rockybalboa123 wrote:
There can be other factors as well which leads to respiratory ailments and these factors will only decline after the government regulations go into effect.

What other factors do you think will decline only after government regulation go into effect?

The government regulation is only about cutting emissions. Nothing else. These emissions will be cut in half in the next two years by Woodco. Option E says that even if Woodco cuts its emission to half, there are other plants waiting to start which will negate all the decrease in pollution by Woodco.

Did I make sense? Let me know if you understand this.

Thanks
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3305
Followers: 1122

Kudos [?]: 4923 [0], given: 54

Re: CR: OG -13. Q # 59, 65, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 11:24
rockybalboa123 wrote:
OG – 13 . Q # 67
Several industries have recently switched at least partly from older technologies powered by fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. It is thus evident that less fossil fuel is being used as a result of the operations of these industries than would have been used if these industries had retained their older technologies.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many of the industries that have switched at least partly to the new technologies have increased their output.
(B) Less fossil fuel was used to manufacture the machinery employed in the new technologies than was originally used to manufacture the machinery employed in the older technologies.
(C) More electricity is used by those industries that have switched at least partly to the new technologies than by those industries that have not switched.
(D) Some of the industries that have switched at least partly to the new technologies still use primarily technologies that are powered by fossil fuels.
(E) The amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount that would have been used to power the older technologies.

OA: E

Dear Rocky
I'm happy to help with this.

This is one of these questions where it's imperative to have some rudimentary real world knowledge. Here, the real world knowledge one has to have is --- where does electricity come from? It's a sad fact that, in industrial & post-industrial societies, most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. I would love to see more electricity generated by clean sources, like solar power and wind power, but at the moment, these clean source account for shocking small percentages of total electrical generation.

Thus, in this question, using more electricity at the factory means, yes, at the factory, more electricity and less fossil fuels, but in order to know overall whether less in fossil fuels is being consumed, we have to know --- how much fossil fuel is used to make the electricity that they will use at the factory? The argument is not about using less fossil fuels only at the factory --- it's about using less fossil fuels overall.

Here's a blog series that gives some basic real-world background in an assortment of fields that you may well have to know to understand CR questions.

http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-supply-and-demand/

I would say, it's crucial to read the newspaper and read news journals like the Economist magazine, to have a good sense of real world contingencies. The GMAT CR always reflect real-world priorities, and they are ripe for misinterpretation if you are not familiar with these priorities.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1975
Followers: 1936

Kudos [?]: 6413 [0], given: 260

Re: CR: OG -13. Q # 59, 65, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 11:26
rockybalboa123 wrote:

OG – 13, Q # 65

Which of the following logically completes the passage?

Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when pecans are comparatively scarce, but the prices drops sharply when pecans are abundant.
Thus, in high yield years, growers often hold back part of their crop in refrigerated warehouses for one or two years, hoping for higher prices in future.This year's pecan crop was the smallest in five years. It is nonetheless quite possible that a portion of this year's crop will be held back,since

A) Each of the last two years produced record breaking pecan yields
B) The Quality of this year's pecan crop is no more worse than the quality of the pecan crops of the previous five years
C) pecan prices have not been to sharp fluctuation in recent years
D) For some pecan growers , this year's crop was no smaller than last year's.
E) the practice of olding back part one year's crop had not yet become widespread the last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year.

OA:A

Why is ‘E’ wrong?

Option E states that the practice of holding back the crops had not become widespread which means that the crops were sold which means that the pecan growers had no inventory.

Furthermore, the quantity was the same. Hence they will hold back the crops this year in order to gain more profits in future

I like the way you explain your thinking. This helps me greatly in responding directly to your doubts. Thanks

E) the practice of holding back part one year's crop had not yet become widespread the last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year.

Read the underlined part. When did this last time happen? Not in the last five years because it is clearly stated in the passage that this years crop was the lowest in five years. So, how can we say that pecan growers don't have inventory right now? If last year's crop was very high, then they should have the inventory.

In addition, even if they had no inventory, why would they hold back crops when the harvest is already low? It is clearly given in the passage that growers hold back the crop when the harvest is high. In case of low production, pecan growers get high prices and thus, would want to sell their whole produce. (Storing for next year would be risk since there is a chance that next year produce may be higher and prices lower)

Does that make sense?

Now, let me explain why option A is correct? If each of last two years had record harvests, then growers should have some inventory from last two years ( since they would have held back some of their produce in the last two years). In such a scenario, they would want to replace their old products in the inventory with the new produce of this year, to avoid rotting of the crops. Thus, they would hold back some of their current year produce.

Hope this helps

Let me know if it doesn't serve your purpose.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3305
Followers: 1122

Kudos [?]: 4923 [0], given: 54

Re: CR: OG -13. Q # 59, 65, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 11:39
rockybalboa123 wrote:

OG – 13, Q # 65

Which of the following logically completes the passage?

Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when pecans are comparatively scarce, but the prices drops sharply when pecans are abundant.
Thus, in high yield years, growers often hold back part of their crop in refrigerated warehouses for one or two years, hoping for higher prices in future.This year's pecan crop was the smallest in five years. It is nonetheless quite possible that a portion of this year's crop will be held back, since

A) Each of the last two years produced record breaking pecan yields
B) The Quality of this year's pecan crop is no more worse than the quality of the pecan crops of the previous five years
C) pecan prices have not been to sharp fluctuation in recent years
D) For some pecan growers , this year's crop was no smaller than last year's.
E) the practice of holding back part one year's crop had not yet become widespread the last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year.

OA:A

Why is ‘E’ wrong?

Option E states that the practice of holding back the crops had not become widespread which means that the crops were sold which means that the pecan growers had no inventory. Furthermore, the quantity was the same. Hence they will hold back the crops this year in order to gain more profits in future

OK, Champ, it looks like I will have time to answer all three after all.

(A) each of the last two years produced record breaking pecan yields
This means everyone has a bumper crop in reserve, so even though yields are low this year, there's going to be no shortage of pecans, as folks will be releasing frozen surplus from previous years. It makes sense that a farmer might prefer to sell some stuff frozen two years ago, and put into the freezer fresh stuff grown now, as opposed to selling the fresh stuff right now and holding two-year old stuff in the freezer for another year. Freezing helps keeps food longer, but you can't keep things forever in a freezer. This is an excellent answer.

(E) the practice of holding back part one year's crop had not yet become widespread the last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year.
We are told in the prompt, this practice of holding back part of one's pecan crop is now standard practice --- we don't know how long it's been standard practice, but it is currently standard practice.
When was the last time pecan crops were these small? We don't know. Maybe it was 4 or 5 years ago. Or maybe it was in 1893. We don't know. If the last time pecan crops were low was 4 or 5 years ago, then what they did 4 or 5 years ago might have some bearing on what they would do now. If the last time pecan crops were low was 1893, before agribusiness, before electrical refrigeration, then whatever they did back then, however they dealt with the situation then, is completely irrelevant to how we would deal with the situation now. Because we have absolutely no idea when this "last time" was, we cannot draw any definitive conclusion from this statement.

This is why (A) is a much stronger answer than (E).

Here's a free practice GMAT CR question:
http://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3118
When you submit your answer, the following page will have a complete video explanation. Enjoy!

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Re: CR: OG -13. Q # 59, 65,   [#permalink] 04 Mar 2013, 11:39
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Q31 Which of the following most logically completes the 2 29 Oct 2007, 03:29
Q1 - Which of the following most logically completes the 12 23 Oct 2007, 14:18
Q40: Which of the following most logically completes the 6 15 Jul 2007, 08:29
Q)Which of the following most logically completes the 17 11 Jun 2007, 11:53
Which of the following most logically completes the 16 10 Sep 2006, 19:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by