|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 9
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Recent studies show that even after expensive measures have [#permalink]
 14 Aug 2005, 21:15
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Recent studies show that even after expensive measures have been taken to decrease the amount of pollutants in a lake, the pollution level of the water remains high. For this reason, many senators are skeptical about whether certain pollution control measures are worth their tremendous cost.
Which of the following,if true,casts the most serious doubt on the senator's reasoning ?
a) For a lake to recover from serious pollution, not only must measures be taken to decrease pollutants but also enough time must be allowed for these measures to work.
b) Environmentalists claim that the sources of pollution that are being eleminated are but a small fraction of the causes of the pollution
c) The level of animal life in a lake remains constant throughout the implementation of pollution control measures.
d) Scientists say that the tools to facilitate more thorough lake clean-ups are now being perfected
e) Cleaning up bodes of water, inlcuding lakes, rivers, and oceans, is a critical part of a senators responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1745
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: PR question [#permalink]
14 Aug 2005, 21:37
a) For a lake to recover from serious pollution, not only must measures be taken to decrease pollutants but also enough time must be allowed for these measures to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 54
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
It's A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 219
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
A is my answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 9
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Yes the OA is 'A'
But i have question here.
But first this is my analysis of the question :
The conclusion here is : Senators doubt the effectiveness of the pollution control measures
Evidence : The expensive measures havent decreased the amount of pollutants.
Assumption : The right measures have been taken and have been implemented correctly.
So if we are able to suggest that : the right measures have not been taken ( the right causes are not being eleminated , as in choice B ). Isnt it enough to weaken the conclusion ?
PR says the stimulus doesnt mention anything about the causes of pollution, and hence choice B is wrong. But I am not able to convince myself about this, because the choice clearly mentions an alternative explanation for the failure of the measures .
Your thoughts on this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
