Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 01:18

It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 01:18

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 16
Sneak Peek: $200 Off GMAT Prep
12:00 PM EDT
-
11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2 3 4

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 109,715

Own Kudos:

810,331

[8]

Given Kudos: 105,795

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,715

Kudos: 810,331

[8]

18 Dec 2024, 09:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

00:00

Start Timer

Pause Timer

Resume Timer

Show Answer

Hide

Show

History

Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:45) correct

43% (02:09) wrong

based on 442 sessions

History

Date

Time

Result

Not Attempted Yet

12 Days of Christmas 2024 - 2025 Competition with $40,000 of Prizes

In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

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.

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

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

(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 question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

Show Answer

Official Answer

Most Helpful Reply

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 109,715

Own Kudos:

810,331

Given Kudos: 105,795

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,715

Kudos: 810,331

18 Dec 2024, 10:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

12 Days of Christmas 2024 - 2025 Competition with $30,000 of Prizes

In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

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.

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

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

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

GMAT Club's Official Explanation:

A. Incorrect. This weakens the argument by suggesting that the difference in pollution levels is due to technological advancements, not regulatory differences.

B. Incorrect. This answer choice weakens the case for adopting similar regulations in Country B by attributing Country A’s lower pollution levels to its natural geography rather than its regulatory environment

C. Incorrect. This suggests that lower pollution levels in Country A are due to government investment in expensive purification technologies, not stricter regulations.

D. Incorrect. Weakens the argument by showing that similar regulations in a comparable country did not lead to improved pollution levels, implying that stricter regulations in Country B may not have the desired effect.

E. Correct Answer - this option not only does not weaken but quite the opposite, strengthens the argument by telling us that the comparison of pollutants in rivers of Country A and B are actually not apples to apples, and that the situation is actually worse in Country B, as it has faster flowing rivers, which should disperse pollutants faster and since they are not (we are told the pollution level is higher in the setup), this supports the argument and at minimum does not weaken it.

General Discussion

aviraj1703

Joined: 27 May 2024

Last visit: 10 Mar 2025

Posts: 98

Own Kudos:

123

[1]

Given Kudos: 6

Posts: 98

Kudos: 123

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 09:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) Pollution due to less advanced technologies, it does not suggest about regulations so it weakens. - Incorrect.

(B) It tells wetlands are the reason behind less pollution not regulations, so weakener. - Incorrect.

(C) No role of regulations, weakener. - Incorrect.

(D) No significant improvement but still some improvement but still comparison is irrelevant. - Incorrect.

(E) This says that Country B has rivers with high flow rate so level of pollution is the cause for higher pollution and only delta described in the argument is regulations, though there might be other reasons but no such evidences are present or given. - Correct.

thelady02

Joined: 04 Jun 2020

Last visit: 25 Mar 2026

Posts: 114

Own Kudos:

[2]

Given Kudos: 41

Location: India

Schools: Goizueta '27 (D) Tepper '27 (WL) ISB '27 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q81 V82 DI77 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 615 Q85 V80 DI77 Verified score

GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35 Verified score

GRE 1: Q156 V154 Verified score

GPA: 3.4

Schools: Goizueta '27 (D) Tepper '27 (WL) ISB '27 (A)

GMAT Focus 2: 615 Q85 V80 DI77 Verified score

GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35 Verified score

GRE 1: Q156 V154 Verified score

Posts: 114

Kudos: 30

[2]

18 Dec 2024, 09:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

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.

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

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

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

The argument says that because country A has strict regulations on industrial waste disposal and country B doesn't, country B's river is more polluted. The argument further concludes that if B adopts A's strategies, B could reduce river pollution. But the assumption here is that adopting A's industrial waste disposal strategy will reduce B's river pollution.

A statement that weakens the argument weakens the assumption that adopting A's strategies will help country B reduce its river pollution. In other words, we have to find something that says B's river pollution will not reduce if it adopted A's strategy.

Since it is an EXCEPT question, the right answer will not weaken the argument.

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
This weakens our assumption. If A has more advanced technologies, it is unlikely that B's technologies can uphold the same quality just by changing regulations.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
Similar explanation as above

(C)The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
Weakens 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.
Seems irrelevant since we don;t know other similarities or differences between the third country and 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.
This is the correct answer. It says that country B already has a higher flow rate, which removes pollutants effectively. So, if country B decided to implement A's strategies, B will produce lesser pollution, and thus, it's rivers will effectively remove the pollution.

siddhantvarma

Joined: 12 May 2024

Last visit: 12 Jan 2026

Posts: 534

Own Kudos:

809

Given Kudos: 197

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q87 V85 DI76 Verified score

Posts: 534

Kudos: 809

18 Dec 2024, 09:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion: Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.
Premise: River pollution is significantly lower in Country A, where stricter waste disposal regulations exist, compared to Country B, which has fewer such regulations.
The argument assumes that the difference in pollution levels is caused by the difference in regulations and that implementing stricter regulations in Country B will result in cleaner rivers.

We need an option that does not weaken the argument.

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
This suggests that the difference in river pollution may be due to differences in waste production capabilities rather than regulations. It weakens the argument by introducing an alternative explanation for the difference in pollution levels.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
This suggests that Country A's rivers are cleaner because of natural factors, not regulations. It also weakens the argument by providing a non-regulatory explanation for cleaner rivers in Country A.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
This implies that the difference in pollution is due to additional technologies, not just regulations. It also weakens the argument by showing that factors other than regulations might be responsible for cleaner rivers so the regulations may not help.

(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 directly challenges the argument's assumption that implementing stricter regulations will lead to cleaner rivers in Country B. Hence this weakens the argument too.

(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 has no direct impact on whether stricter regulations would improve pollution levels in Country B. The flow rate is unrelated to whether regulations can help, so it does not weaken the argument. This is the correct answer.

Nikhil17bhatt

Joined: 25 Aug 2018

Last visit: 31 May 2025

Posts: 67

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 14

Posts: 67

Kudos: 75

18 Dec 2024, 09:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

IMO E

To determine which option does not weaken the argument that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers, we need to analyze each option in terms of how it affects the argument. The argument is based on the premise that stricter regulations in Country B would lead to cleaner rivers, similar to those in Country A.

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

Analysis: This weakens the argument because it suggests that the lower pollution levels in Country A are due to technological advancements rather than stricter regulations. Therefore, even if Country B implements stricter regulations, it might not achieve the same results without similar technological advancements.

Option (B): Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.

Analysis: This weakens the argument because it indicates that the natural environment in Country A plays a significant role in reducing pollution levels. Thus, the lower pollution levels may not be solely due to stricter regulations, but also due to the natural filtration provided by wetlands, which Country B lacks.

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

Analysis: This weakens the argument because it implies that the cleaner rivers in Country A are a result of significant investments in water purification technologies, not just stricter regulations. If Country B cannot afford similar investments, stricter regulations alone may not lead to cleaner rivers.

Option (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.

Analysis: This weakens the argument because it provides evidence that adopting similar regulations did not lead to cleaner rivers in a comparable country. This suggests that stricter regulations may not be effective in improving river cleanliness in Country B either.

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

Analysis: This does not weaken the argument. In fact, it could be seen as supporting the argument because it suggests that despite having a natural advantage in dispersing pollutants, Country B still has higher pollution levels. This implies that stricter regulations could be necessary to further reduce pollution, as the natural dispersal is not sufficient.

The correct answer is (E) because it is the only option that does not weaken the argument that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

Elite097

Joined: 20 Apr 2022

Last visit: 04 Feb 2026

Posts: 739

Own Kudos:

568

[1]

Given Kudos: 346

Location: India

Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27

GPA: 3.64

Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27

Posts: 739

Kudos: 568

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 09:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

(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 that the lower pollution levels in Country A are due to technological differences, not stricter regulations.
❌ Weakens the argument.
(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 because it attributes the cleaner rivers in Country A to natural wetlands, not stricter regulations.
❌ Weakens the argument.
(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 suggests that the difference in pollution levels is due to water purification investments, not stricter regulations.
❌ Weakens 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.

This weakens the argument by showing that stricter regulations (like those in Country A) might not necessarily lead to cleaner rivers in Country B.
❌ Weakens the argument.
(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 argument. In fact, it could support the argument because it implies that Country B’s rivers already have an advantage in dispersing pollutants, so stricter regulations could complement this natural benefit to further reduce pollution. Alternatively, it might be irrelevant, as it does not directly address the need for stricter regulations.
✅ Does not weaken the argument.

Ans E

SAKSHI2907

Joined: 23 Jun 2024

Last visit: 19 Feb 2025

Posts: 16

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 22

Posts: 16

Kudos: 10

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 09:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

Argument: Because of fewer regulations on industrial waste disposaal country B has more level of river pollution. To control the situation stricter laws to be implemented in Country B as it will lower the level of river pollution just as in Country A.

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.(eliminate) This weakens the argument as it states lower pollution in country A is because of technological advances.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B. (eliminate) Again Weakens the argument by stating natural wetlands are responsible to filter out pollutants not the regulations and laws.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.(eliminate) provides support that county A uses technology like water purification to keep rivers pollution free. It weakens argument as regulations and laws are not contributing factors for less river pollution

(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.(eliminate) says that the laws will be ineffective if implemented.

(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) The only options where it doesn't say regulations will be ineffective and there are alternative methods.

MKeerthu

Joined: 12 Mar 2024

Last visit: 02 Apr 2025

Posts: 53

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 22

Posts: 53

Kudos: 59

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 09:40

Kudos

Bookmarks

The answer is option E.

In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

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.

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

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

(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 have to find an answer that strengthens country B because we are told that all options weakens except,

Option A to C can be eliminated as it is talking high of country A. Option D is a trap answer as it says another country like country B had implemented waste disposal regulation and didn't see any improvements. But we are looking to strengthen country B, Option E is the only one that strengthens country B

Heix

Joined: 21 Feb 2024

Last visit: 13 Apr 2026

Posts: 460

Own Kudos:

164

[1]

Given Kudos: 63

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship

Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27

GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77 Verified score

GPA: 3.4

WE:Accounting (Finance)

Products:

Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27

GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 460

Kudos: 164

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 09:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

Argument : Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve river cleanliness, based on the comparison with country a which has lower pollution levels and more regulation

A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
this weaken the argument by suggesting that the difference in pollution levels is due to technology, not regulations. Eliminated

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 by providing an alternative explanation for lower pollution level in country A. Eliminated

C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
This weaken the argument by suggesting that the difference is due to water purification technologies not regulation Eliminated

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 directly weaken the argument by showing that similar regulation did not work elsewhere Eliminated

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 actually strengthen the argument. If country B's river disperse pollutants better, yet still have higer pollution levels, it suggest an even greater need for stricter regulations

therefore the correct answer is option E

YashK23

Joined: 16 May 2024

Last visit: 15 Feb 2025

Posts: 15

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 46

Location: India

Posts: 15

Kudos: 17

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 09:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

Ans is option E:

A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B - Weakens the argument explaining that stricter waste disposal regulations is not the reason behind Country A having cleaner rivers

B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B. Again weakens the argument giving another reason of better wetland system making Country A rivers cleaner and the reason again is not stricter waste disposal regulations.

C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B. - Explains why country A has cleaner rivers and the reason again is not stricter waste disposal regulations.

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. Proves again that the stricter waste disposal regulations won't make difference weaking the argument.

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 weaken the argument.

Mantrix

Joined: 13 May 2023

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 253

Own Kudos:

132

[1]

Given Kudos: 44

Location: India

Schools: MiM '26 HEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiM '26 (A) Imperial (A) IESE

GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q87 V75 DI77 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 635 Q82 V82 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 9

Schools: MiM '26 HEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiM '26 (A) Imperial (A) IESE

GMAT Focus 2: 635 Q82 V82 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 253

Kudos: 132

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 09:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion: We need to choose which one is not weaking the conclusion that Implementing the Strict Laws will Reduce the pollution in B's Rivers.

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
It is the Industries are more Advance and produce less waste, that reduces the pollution in A, its not the Regulations that is helping in it (so Weakening)

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
(it is the A's Natural System that Keep the Pollution in control, not the regulations) - Weakening

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
(It's Purification Techs, that keep the pollution in control, not the regulations) - Weakening

(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.
(It's the example of another state that even after the regulations not seen any improvement, it may be the case in B also, so weakening)

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A. (B has natural thing, still the Pollution higher, so prolly laws can help in reducing the pollution).

So answer is E

hr1212

GMAT Forum Director

Joined: 18 Apr 2019

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 913

Own Kudos:

1,310

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,197

GMAT Focus 1: 775 Q90 V85 DI90 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT Focus 1: 775 Q90 V85 DI90 Verified score

Posts: 913

Kudos: 1,310

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 10:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

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. Weakens the argument by mentioning advancements in industrial facilities leading to lower river pollution and not the waste regulations

(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 mentioning natural filters reducing pollution rather than the waste regulations

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B. This gives us another reason where waste regulations might not be the deciding factor instead better purification technologies would be the cause for low river pollution, hence weakens 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. Weakens the argument by mentioning similar adoption of waste regulations but not seeing the improvement which indirectly hints at something else which might be impacting low river pollution instead of waste regulations

(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 indirectly strengthens the argument by mentioning that even after better natural filters country B has high river pollution than country A, which could be due to the better waste regulations in place in country A

Krunaal

Tuck School Moderator

Joined: 15 Feb 2021

Last visit: 19 Apr 2026

Posts: 853

Own Kudos:

909

[1]

Given Kudos: 251

Status:Under the Square and Compass

Location: India

Schools: Tuck '26 (WL) Ross '26 (A$$$$) Stern '26 (A) McCombs '26 (A$)

GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82 Verified score

GPA: 5.78

WE:Marketing (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: Tuck '26 (WL) Ross '26 (A$$$$) Stern '26 (A) McCombs '26 (A$)

GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82 Verified score

Posts: 853

Kudos: 909

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 10:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. If Country A produces less waste due to advanced technology rather than stricter regulations, then the comparison does not justify stricter regulations in Country B. Weakens the argument. INCORRECT

B. If the difference in pollution levels is due to natural filtration rather than regulations, then stricter regulations in Country B might not be the solution. Weakens the argument. INCORRECT

C. If cleaner rivers in Country A result from water purification investments rather than regulations, the proposed solution for Country B is undermined. Weakens the argument. INCORRECT

D. This directly suggests that stricter regulations might not effectively reduce river pollution in Country B, undermining the argument. Weakens the argument. INCORRECT

E. While this explains a natural difference between the rivers, it does not challenge the need for stricter regulations in Country B. It is irrelevant to whether such regulations could improve pollution levels. Does not weaken the argument. CORRECT

Answer E

sushanth21

Joined: 09 Nov 2024

Last visit: 15 Jan 2026

Posts: 82

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 82

Kudos: 69

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 10:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

E
To show if the argument in the options doesnt weaken the argument above,
we need to find an argument that doesnt undermine the implementation of "regulations on industrial waste disposal".

(A)
It undermines the implementation of "regulations on industrial waste disposal" by saying that the reason for low pollution in country A is because of advanced technology
(B)
It undermines the implementation of "regulations on industrial waste disposal" by saying country A naturally filters the pollutants without use of any regulations
(C)
It undermines the implementation of "regulations on industrial waste disposal" by focusing on water purification technologies and says that they are the casue of low pollution
(D)
It clearly says that methods of Country A when implemented had no use, then theres no point in implementing the regulations in Country B
(E)
This option doesnt talk about any implementations in A, and does not undermine anything. So this is the only option that deos not weaken the argument

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

HarshaBujji

Joined: 29 Jun 2020

Last visit: 05 Apr 2026

Posts: 723

Own Kudos:

906

Given Kudos: 247

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 723

Kudos: 906

18 Dec 2024, 10:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

(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 technological differences, not stricter regulations.) Eliminated.

(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 because it attributes Country A's cleaner rivers to natural factors (wetlands) rather than regulations.) Eliminated.
(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 suggests the difference in pollution levels is due to water purification technologies, not regulations.)Eliminated.
(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 because it provides evidence that implementing stricter regulations may not lead to cleaner rivers.)Eliminated.
(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 argument because it neither directly challenges the idea that stricter regulations are needed nor provides an alternative explanation for the pollution levels. Instead, it highlights a natural advantage of Country B's rivers, which doesn't directly impact the argument about stricter regulations.

Hence IMO E

Rex885

Joined: 06 Apr 2024

Last visit: 27 Dec 2024

Posts: 25

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 25

Kudos: 28

18 Dec 2024, 10:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

Common Mistake in EXCEPT questions : "weaken EXCEPT" does not imply strengthen.
It simply means does not weaken -> { which maybe a strengthener}

Here Conc is: if stricter regulations then pollution will reduce.
What would a weakener do? if we show that. "regulations are not related to pollution and it was some other factor."

This is what options A to D are doing.
But option E) does not seem to weaken it in any way
rather it can be seen as mild strengthener--> it was that River in B are able to disperse pollutant more effectively. i.e. it is NOT the case that Rivers in A are better at dispersing pollutants.

Nutella024

Joined: 05 Nov 2024

Last visit: 15 Aug 2025

Posts: 30

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 70

WE:Other (Retail: E-commerce)

Posts: 30

Kudos: 24

18 Dec 2024, 10:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

The argument claims that Country B needs stricter waste disposal regulations to reduce river pollution, based on the observation that Country A has stricter regulations and lower pollution levels. The task is to identify the option that does not weaken the argument (i.e., the one that supports or is neutral to the claim).

Option Analysis:
(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 that the lower pollution in Country A is due to differences in technology, not stricter regulations.
Eliminate.

(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 by attributing lower pollution in Country A to natural filtration systems, not regulations.
Eliminate.

(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 by suggesting that pollution levels are controlled by technology investments, not regulations.
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 directly challenges the idea that stricter regulations would lead to cleaner rivers, showing that the proposed solution might not work.
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 does not weaken the argument. While it suggests that Country B’s rivers handle pollution differently, it does not challenge the claim that stricter regulations would improve cleanliness.
Correct Answer.

[hr]
Final Answer: (E)

Kinshook

Major Poster

Joined: 03 Jun 2019

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 5,985

Own Kudos:

5,855

Given Kudos: 163

Location: India

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

WE:Engineering (Transportation)

Products:

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

Posts: 5,985

Kudos: 5,855

18 Dec 2024, 10:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

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.
Weakens the argument since waste generation is inherently lower in Country A leading to lower levels of river pollution. Lower river pollution is not because of stricter regulations in Country A. Therefore, Country B need not implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.
Incorrect

(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 since Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B leading to lower levels of river pollution. Lower river pollution is not because of stricter regulations in Country A. Therefore, Country B need not implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.
Incorrect

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
Weakens the argument since Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B leading to lower levels of river pollution. Lower river pollution is not because of stricter regulations in Country A. Therefore, Country B need not implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.
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.
Weakens the argument since there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels after a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A.
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.
DOES NOT WEAKEN the argument since Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A, then without stricter regulations river pollution should have been lower in Country B than in Country B.
It seems stricter regulations in Country A are real reason behind lower river pollution.
Correct

IMO E

IssacChan

Joined: 25 Sep 2024

Last visit: 21 Mar 2025

Posts: 55

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 55

Kudos: 50

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 10:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

The argument is implement stricter waste disposal regulations would improve the cleanliness of the rivers, therefore we need to search for supporting/not weaken answer the resolve this question.

(A) Support country B for more advanced technology = weaken the need of implement stricter waste disposal (x)
(B) More extensive natural wetlands in Country A = weaken the need of implement stricter waste disposal (x)
(C) Invest over water purification technologies = weaken the need of implement stricter waste disposal (x)
(D) No significant improvement in adopt waste disposal = weaken the need of implement stricter waste disposal [color=#c10300](x)[/color]
(E) Naturally disperses pollutants more effectively does not challenge the need of implement stricter waste disposal (v)

Therefore the answer is E.