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

Option A through D weakens the argument. Only option E strengthens the argument by affirming the need to have regulations that will counter the predisposed risk of pollution

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

Statement: Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.
Ask: Which statement does not weaken the statement

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B
This weakens the statement since it says that it is not because of the regulations that the country A has lower levels of river pollution but because it generally produces less waste because of its advanced technology.

(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 statement since it says that it is not because of the regulations that the country A has lower levels of river pollution but because the natural wetlands system filters the pollutants better.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B
This weakens the statement since it says that it is not because of the regulations that the country A has lower levels of river pollution but because of the water purification technology that country A invested in and this technology is not feasible for country B.

(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 statement since it says that when though 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 means that the regulation is not what makes the river less polluted but something else.
(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 does not weaken the statement as it is not challenging the need for implementing stricter regulations directly but mentions an alternative possibility that maybe Country A also has high level of river pollution but because the rivers are slower-moving, the pollutants have just not dispersed enough to understand how polluted the river is.

(A) This weakens the argument because it provides an alternative explanation for lower pollution levels in Country A unrelated to regulations - Incorrect

(B) This weakens the argument by attributing the difference in pollution levels to natural wetlands, not regulations - Incorrect

(C) This weakens the argument by suggesting that water purification, not stricter regulations, is responsible for cleaner rivers in Country A - Incorrect

(D) This weakens the argument by showing that stricter regulations might not lead to better river cleanliness - Incorrect

(E)This does not weaken the argument, as it does not challenge the idea that stricter regulations would still improve Country B's river cleanliness - Correct

Option A ,B,C,D mentions more reasons for A's restrictions to cause less pollution. Option E on the contrary talks about B's effective river system ruling out the option of a situation where though B's regulations are better , B's river system causes more pollution. So E.

Lets find the answer by eliminating the answer choices:
A: it weakens the argument as it shows tech as the differentiator and not Stricter regulations.
B: it weakens the argument as it shows wetlands as the differentiator and not Stricter regulations.
C: it weakens the argument as it shows tech as the differentiator and not Stricter regulations.
D:Weakens as it shows that stricter regulation had no impact on pollution levels of a similar country
E: Right answer, does not weaken.

(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 doesnt weaken the argument about the need for stricter regulations, as it instead says that Country B might have a natural advantage in dispersing pollutants but doesnt address the effectiveness of stricter regulations.

[*](A): This weakens the argument because it suggests that technological differences, not regulations, may explain the lower pollution levels in Country A.
[*](B): This weakens the argument by showing that natural factors, such as wetlands, may account for the cleaner rivers in Country A, not just regulations.
[*](C): This weakens the argument as it indicates that technological investment in water purification, not regulations, may be the key to cleaner rivers in Country A.
[*](D): shows that regulations alone may not improve river pollution levels, which directly challenges the idea that Country B simply needs stricter regulations.
[*](E): This weakens the argument by indicating that natural factors, such as faster river flow, may contribute to lower pollution levels in Country A, rather than regulations alone.

Ans (D) does not weaken the argument.