12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 3: In Country A, levels of

Answer is E.

Argument: Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.
Potential weakeners: Showing that Country A's levels of river pollution are not necessarily due to stricter regulations, or showing that stricter regulations do not necessarily lead to lower pollution.

A. Weakener because shows that Country A's levels of river pollution are not necessarily due to stricter regulations
B. Weakener because shows that Country A's levels of river pollution are not necessarily due to stricter regulations
C. Weakener because shows that Country A's levels of river pollution are not necessarily due to stricter regulations
D. Weakener because shows that stricter regulations do not necessarily lead to lower pollution
E. Not weakener because does not shows evidence against argument

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
Weakens; as cause is technology & not regulation

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B. Weakens; as cause is wetland & not regulation

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
Weakens; as cause is purifier & not regulation

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels. Weakens as item the plan failed in other place.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A. Correct. If rivers are not dispersing the pollutants in A, then regulations must be the reason for low pollution

Answer E

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B. Strengthens the argument.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B. Does not talk about the main point of the question. Adds new, irrelevant information "NATURAL WETLANDS"

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B. Strengthens the argument.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels. out of scope, the main point here is addressing if this would work for country b, and only country b.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

Answer (E) does not weaken the argument since addresses the fact that even with a higher flow rate rive, which disperses pollutants more effectively than rivers in Country A, Country B's rivers are still significantly more polluted than in country A. Thus, regulation must be it.

The prompt goes:

• B has more polluted rivers than A
• B has fewer waste disposal regulations than A

=> therefore, regulations lead to less pollution

So, we expect weakeners to disrupt this conclusion and undermine the importance of regulations.

• (A) explains the cleanliness of Country A by generally less waste (not regulations). Weakener.
• (B) explains the cleanliness of Country A by more extensive wetlands (not regulations). Weakener.
• (C) explains the cleanliness of Country A by more ecological investment (not regulations). Weakener.
• (D) shows that even if Country A's regulations are imposed, its cleanliness is still not matched. Weakener.
• (E) provides context for why it's generally more difficult to sustain river cleanliness in Country B. However, no direct relationship to regulations. Non-weakener.

Therefore, the answer is E.

A) If A is true, it would weaken the argument as the argument hinges on the fact that country B has more river pollution because of improper waste disposal and this point gives the reason country A has less pollution than B is due to better technology in the industries that produce less pollution. Hence WRONG

B) This mentions that the wetlands in country A are the reason of low pollution and says nothing about stricter laws on waste disposal hence weakens the argument. WRONG

C) Country A has less pollution because of better water purification techniques and not because of strict regulation and hence weakens the argument of having stricter regulations in country B. WRONG

D) If a similar country like country B has implemented regulations similar to country A and still has seen no improvement, then it weakens the argument. Hence WRONG

E) CORRECT. this option talks about country B's river that disperse pollutants effectively which is not the case as the stem clearly mentions that rivers are more polluted. Hence does not weaken the argument.

Premise: In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B.
Premise: Country B has fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal than Country A.
Conclusion: Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

A. This weakens the argument by suggesting that the facilities themselves are producing less waste in Country A, which undermines the conclusion that the lower waste levels are from regulations.
B. This weakens the conclusion by offering another potential cause of lower waste levels in Country A.
C. This weakens the argument by suggesting that it is water purification tech, instead of waste disposal regulations, that’s causing the lower pollution levels in A’s rivers.
D. This weakens the conclusion by showing the stated cause, increased regulations, not being followed by the desired effect, lower pollution levels.
E. Irrelevant, or possibly strengthening. Either the higher flow rate in B’s rivers will make adopting A’s regulations more effective, or it won’t matter. This choice doesn’t weaken the argument though.

Best answer is E.

The answer is
(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.

This proves that even if country B adopts the waste regulations of country A it may not achieve same results.

Answer E:

A) Country A more tech advance might be alternate cause.
B) Country A naturally filters might be other reason
C) Same as A
D) not
E) so I ended up with this answer?

The correct answer is E, because it doesn’t provide an explanation of the fact that in country B the level of river pollution is higher. It simply says that river B disperses pollutants more effectively.

(A) Strengthens, Owing to strict regulations, industries have been forced to become technologically advanced against the pollution thereby decreasing the pollution.

(B) Weakens, the implication would be that river pollution is less not because of the regulation proposed by Country A, but rather as a natural effect which wasn't under the control of A in first place.

(C) Weakens, again Country A is taking efforts to solve the problem itself rather than imposing regulations.

(D) Weakens, since there isn't improvement even after following A's regulation scheme.

(E) Weakens, Country B can't do anything about the flow rate since its a natural phenomenon.

Argument: Country B needs stricter waste disposal regulations, like those in Country A, to improve river cleanliness.

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
This weakens the argument because it suggests the lower pollution in Country A is due to advanced technology, not stricter regulations. INCORRECT

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B. INCORRECT
This weakens the argument because it attributes the cleaner rivers in Country A to natural filtering, not to stricter regulations.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
This weakens the argument because it indicates that cleaner rivers in Country A are due to external investments, not stricter regulations. INCORRECT

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.
This weakens the argument by showing that stricter regulations did not lead to cleaner rivers in a comparable scenario, undermining the conclusion. INCORRECT

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.
This is irrelevant because it does not directly explain why stricter regulations wouldn't help Country B. The flow rate only explains how pollution disperses, not its source.
It does not weaken the argument. CORRECT

IMO E

The question asks "Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:"
This can be rephrased as below:
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument above:

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B. - This explains that since Industrial facilities in Country B are not technologically more advanced, they produce more waste. Hence stricter waste disposal regulations need to be implemented - Keep

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B. - This weakens the argument - Out

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B. - This weakens the argument - Out

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels. - This weakens the argument by stating that stricter waste disposal regulations are not required - Out

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A. - This weakens the argument by stating that stricter waste disposal regulations are not required - Out

The Argument

• Country A has cleaner rivers than Country B.
• Country B has fewer rules about industrial waste disposal.
• Conclusion: Country B should have stricter waste disposal rules to clean its rivers.

What Weakens the Argument?
To weaken the argument, we need statements that suggest other reasons why Country B's rivers are more polluted, aside from fewer regulations.

Evaluating Each Statement:

1. (A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
   
   • Weakens the argument because it suggests technology in Country A reduces pollution, not just regulations.
2. (B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
   
   • Weakens the argument by showing natural features in Country A help clean the water.
3. (C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
   
   • Weakens the argument by indicating advanced purification in Country A helps keep rivers clean.
4. (D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.
   
   • Weakens the argument by showing that stricter regulations might not reduce pollution.
5. (E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.
   
   • Does NOT Wake the argument. Instead, it suggests that even with better natural dispersal, Country B still has more pollution, supporting the idea that fewer regulations are a key reason.

Conclusion:

• All statements A to D provide alternative reasons for why Country B's rivers might be more polluted, thus weakening the original argument.
• Statement E does not weaken the argument because it doesn't provide an alternative reason that challenges the link between fewer regulations and higher pollution. Instead, it indirectly supports the need for stricter regulations.

Final Answer:
E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

We need to be cautious, it is an "except" Question.

Answer E) does the opposite, it strengthens the argument.

We need to find 4 options that weaken the Argument.
Conclusion - Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

Options:
(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
Another reason apart from stricter waste disposal regulations why levels of river pollution are significantly lower in Country A than in Country B which casts a doubt on the conclusion hence weakening it. Eliminate

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
Another reason apart from stricter waste disposal regulations why levels of river pollution are significantly lower in Country A than in Country B which casts a doubt on the conclusion hence weakening it. Eliminate

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
Another reason apart from stricter waste disposal regulations why levels of river pollution are significantly lower in Country A than in Country B which casts a doubt on the conclusion hence weakening it. Eliminate

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.
This would weaken the conclusion because it casts a doubt on the conclusion. ELiminate

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.
This strengthens the conclusion. Keep

Qs: Weakens X
Argument: RP in A <<<RP in B (fewer regulations.
C: stricter regulations--- Decreased RP
(Correlation vs Causation trap)
A) Third factor OUT
B) Third factor OUT
C) Third factor OUT
D) Weakener OUT
E) Describing a river’s physics. Yeah

The question stem says that Country A's rivers are less polluted than are country B's rivers. Country B also has fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. So maybe this is the reason why Country B's rivers are more polluted and therefore, Country B should implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the quality of rivers.

Conclusion of this argument is the last line - " Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers."

This means that the argument directly relates that regulations are the only cause by which Country A's rivers are maintaining their quality and Country B is failing.

To weaken this - we might provide a new reason that explains why Country A's rivers are better in quality than Country B's and not because of Regulations.

We need to find one answer that DOES NOT weaken it.

Let's look at the options.

A - This provides a new reason other than the regulations for the river quality being better in Country A than in B. Which means even after imposing stricter regulations in Country B, the river pollution won't decrease. Hence, this weakens. ELIMINATE

B - Similar to option A, this provides another reason (natural wetlands does the job of cleaning) other than the regulations. Therefore, it weakens the argument. ELIMINATE

C - Similar to both options above, a new reason (government investment is heavy in country A for this purpose and can't be done in country B). Therefore, it weakens the argument. ELIMINATE

D - This option tells that even if Country B goes ahead with it's plan of implementing stricter regulations, it won't be able to achieve the goal because a similar neighbouring country did it too but failed to achieve the goal. Hence, it weakens. ELIMINATE

E - This option tells us that even after Country B's rivers having a higher flow rate, which helps in cleaning the rivers better than Country A, It still has more polluted rivers. Then, maybe stricter regulations will help country B's rivers to get better. Hence, Strengthens.

FINAL ANSWER - Option E