Q. Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 18 Jan 2017, 03:52

### 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

# Q. Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 29 May 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

Q. Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 May 2009, 03:08
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

68% (02:28) correct 32% (02:11) wrong based on 177 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Q. Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.

Ans: E Why?
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 218
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [1] , given: 17

### Show Tags

30 May 2009, 03:54
1
KUDOS
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state. (No discussion about economic condition in nation. Out of scope)
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution. (These is no discussion about amendments to act. Out of scope)
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. (Correct and weaken the conclusion, which states that because of economic decline air pollution had fallen)
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. (Strengthen the conclusion)
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage. (There is no talk about budget. Out of scope)
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
Posts: 482
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.9
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2009, 13:39
SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1887
Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 570 [0], given: 32

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2009, 14:04
I cannot possibly agree that E is the answer. It has no effect at all. The issue is with pollution, REAL POLLUTION, not just what is prosecuted by some agency. The answer that weakens the conclusion will show some reason other than business decline is causing the 18% decline in the amount of pollution.

C does this perfectly. The statement we need to weaken is that business decline IS responsible for at least half of the decline in pollution. Well, if a small percentage (5%) of the businesses that are leaving the state are actually responsible for the pollution, then that small of a loss of polluting businesses is NOT the cause for the decrease in pollution. So it must be some other reason than the decline in business. C definitely weakens the conclusion.

When posting a question, PLEASE STATE THE SOURCE!!!

apramanik wrote:
Q. Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.

Ans: E Why?

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$. GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings Senior Manager Joined: 16 Jan 2009 Posts: 359 Concentration: Technology, Marketing GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34 GPA: 3 WE: Sales (Telecommunications) Followers: 4 Kudos [?]: 199 [0], given: 16 Re: Clean Air Act [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Jun 2009, 15:12 apramanik wrote: It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. an argument which will weaken the stimulus above should minimize the impact of business decline w.r.t the decline in the pollution. apramanik wrote: (C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. IMO C _________________ Lahoosaher SVP Joined: 04 May 2006 Posts: 1926 Schools: CBS, Kellogg Followers: 22 Kudos [?]: 1011 [0], given: 1 Re: Clean Air Act [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Jun 2009, 19:03 apramanik wrote: Q. Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above? (A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state. (B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution. (C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. (D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. (E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage. [Reveal] Spoiler: Answer Ans: E Why? Guys, C strenthens rather than weakens the argument. I confused btw B and E, but B focused itself on "amendments" rather than "the Clean Air Act" so B is eliminated. E weakens the argument by saying that "the regulations in the act, rather than the business decline, are responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. _________________ SVP Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 1887 Location: Oklahoma City Schools: Hard Knocks Followers: 40 Kudos [?]: 570 [0], given: 32 Re: Clean Air Act [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Jun 2009, 19:37 C does not strengthen the argument. An answer that strengthens the argument will reinforce why business decline is the cause of declining air pollution. According to C, 95% of the business decline had nothing to do with the air pollution problem to begin with. If 95% of the businesses that are ending didn't pollute to begin with, then this decline in business will have no effect on whether the pollution decreases or increases. Since the conclusion is that declining business DOES cause the declining air pollution, C cannot strengthen that because it shows a very small impact (i.e., 5% of businesses that ended created air pollution therefore, few polluting businesses actually went out of business). Because C shows the decine of business actually had a small impact, it cannot be "probable that the decline in business" caused the decreased air pollution. sondenso wrote: apramanik wrote: Q. Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above? (A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state. (B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution. (C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. (D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. (E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage. [Reveal] Spoiler: Answer Ans: E Why? Guys, C strenthens rather than weakens the argument. I confused btw B and E, but B focused itself on "amendments" rather than "the Clean Air Act" so B is eliminated. E weakens the argument by saying that "the regulations in the act, rather than the business decline, are responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. _________________ ------------------------------------ J Allen Morris **I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 1011 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2009, 20:19
jallenmorris wrote:

apramanik wrote:
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

jallenmorris wrote:
According to C, 95% of the business decline had nothing to do with the air pollution problem to begin with.

95% of 10% of businesses declines VS only 2 violators prosecuted. Which one is more responsible?
_________________
SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1887
Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 570 [0], given: 32

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2009, 20:27
sondenso,

I think you are misreading C. C states that only 5% of the businesses that did decline were businesses that polluted the air. The only way air pollution will go down when business goes down is if those businesses that cease are businesses that pollute the air. Here, C states that only 5% of the businesses that ceased operations actually WERE polluting the air. Since it was a small % of those businesses that failed, the impact of the decline in business should have been slight, therefore underminging the conclusion that the decline in business IS the reason for the decline in air pollution.

With regard to E. It states that the agency responsible for prosecuting these polluting businesses only prosecuted 2. This means that there are still many businesses that are polluting. Furthermore, this answer is out of the scope. It discusses prosecuting businesses and doesn't deal at all with the decline of business. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to as long as it provides a reason other than declining business as the cause, thus weakening the argument, but the fact that such a small number is prosecuted is not any incentive for businesses to stop polluting because only 2 businesses were prosecuted. If that number were 25,000 (or some other high number) then it would make sense a biz would stop polluting the air because they would see a high # being prosecuted and conclude that they too would be prosecuted if they polluted the air, and to avoid prosecution, the business would take steps to stop polluting the air. This would establish some reason OTHER than a decline in business as the cause, but E doesn't do this.

sondenso wrote:
jallenmorris wrote:

apramanik wrote:
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

jallenmorris wrote:
According to C, 95% of the business decline had nothing to do with the air pollution problem to begin with.

95% of 10% of businesses declines VS only 2 violators prosecuted. Which one is more responsible?

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
Posts: 482
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.9
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2009, 21:00
Googling the exact question led me to another test prep forum in which the OP posted that the original answer is C.
Typo by OP in this thread -> epic confusion and fail.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 292
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2009, 09:41
One more for Clear C.
Manager
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 108
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2009, 04:11
One more vote for C.
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 849
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 310 [0], given: 106

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2009, 08:09
Well I got C too (1:45)
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 57
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2009, 07:17
This ?s is from 1000cr. And OA is C. And i agree. That is correct
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 224
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2009, 08:11
I thought it was C, too.
Manager
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 164
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

20 May 2010, 18:59
I understand why C is correct but was wondering why B might be wrong? I believe that 'Amendments to the Clean Air Act' (since additional information can be brought in weakening questions to wekaen the stimulus) can be true and can have an effect towards reducing pollution. So, is it because of the 'amendments' or 'a time period of 6 years' or use of 'significant' (extreme language) that makes B a wrong choice?

Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 75
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

22 May 2010, 06:58
gmatprep09 wrote:
I understand why C is correct but was wondering why B might be wrong? I believe that 'Amendments to the Clean Air Act' (since additional information can be brought in weakening questions to wekaen the stimulus) can be true and can have an effect towards reducing pollution. So, is it because of the 'amendments' or 'a time period of 6 years' or use of 'significant' (extreme language) that makes B a wrong choice?

I believe option C is much better because it proves business declines is not the cause but something else. Where as B proves that acts was more responsible and nothing about the other option(business decline)
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 575 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

24 May 2010, 11:48
lot of discussion already and OA is indeed C.
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 16:29
Why not D?
Act -> business left -> pollution down
we can infer that Act -> pollution down
Could somebody explain? thanks
Manager
Status: Keep fighting!
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 235
WE 1: 2+ years - Programming
WE 2: 3+ years - Product developement,
WE 3: 2+ years - Program management
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 439 [0], given: 104

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 16:03
Yup. C strengthens the opinion that something other than the clean air act took the industries down.

I agree with D. Debatable OA anyway!
Re: Clean Air Act   [#permalink] 22 Oct 2010, 16:03

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Q. Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years 0 30 May 2009, 03:07
Since the passage of the states Clean Air Act ten years ago, 14 08 Oct 2007, 20:08
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years 6 18 Jun 2007, 18:01
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years 2 27 Mar 2007, 15:10
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years 4 16 Mar 2007, 14:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by