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:
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years [#permalink]
28 Apr 2005, 06:55
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Since the passage of the stateâ€™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.
1. Which of following is an assumption made in the passage above?
(A) Most businesses in the state have obeyed the regulations embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(B) The economic decline of the state can be attributed, in part, to the effects of the Clean Air Act.
(C) The amount of air pollution in a given area is likely to be proportional to the number of businesses and workers active in that area.
(D) The restrictions on business activity in other states are less stringent than are those embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(E) The Clean Air Act has been only very slightly successful in achieving the goal of reduced air pollution.
2. 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.
1 -- c supports the conclusion by saying that the regulation was probably not the cause of reduction in pollution levels....and hence can be considered a valid assumption.
2 -- c weakens the conclusion because if the industries were not involved in polluting the environment, there existence doenst make a difference to pollution levels, in which case, it was the govt resolution which caused the reduction in pollution levels.
can someone tell why 'D' can't be the answer for the 2nd ques? since, the Act was responsible for decrease in businesses, indirectly responsible for the decrease in air pollution.
We're told to weaken the conclusion that the business decline is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. D goes on to suggests that large corporations are forced out by the clean air act, which can be interepreted that the large corporations are polluting the environement. So D instead of weakening the conclusion, actually strengthens it.
to dig up a old question. I didnt choose C becuase even if 5% of the companies create pollution, they could be responsible for 80% of the pollution. the 80-20 rule. can someone please tell me where i went wrong?