Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 24 Mar 2017, 05:25

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# 2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2010, 15:08
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?

A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.

whats the answer ? why ?
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Posts: 11
Location: INDIA
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 00:13
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 17

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2010, 00:02
pinkRibbons wrote:
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?

A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.

whats the answer ? why ?

Is D the OA???
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2010
Posts: 301
Schools: Chicago Booth Class of 2013
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 194

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2010, 12:34
Is it A?
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 331
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2010, 13:05
Used POE to narrow down to C & D. I was inclined towards C, however, D seems correct.

Out of scope. Also irrelevant since there is no mention of any pesticide filtering A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.

Out of scope. Nothing mentioned about fund allocation B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.

Out of scope. Extend of harm is not discussed since the company has stated (premises) that they dumping is not harmful C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.

Correct. The dumping of unused pesticides is harmless. Therefore, might as well locate the dumping station at a location that has fewer regulations / cheaper D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.

Out of scope. Nothing is mentioned about anyone suing the company E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 188
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2010, 09:35
pinkRibbons wrote:
A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Can some one please resolve the question.
P1 : Unused Pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to aquatic life.
P2 : Pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the aquatic life.

Why does it have 2 premises each exactly opposite to the other ?
I am unable to make sense of the Premises itself.
_________________

Please give me kudos, if you like the above post.
Thanks.

Re: MBA question verbal   [#permalink] 03 Oct 2010, 09:35
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 GMATPREP ChallengeQ -Many United States companies believe 16 12 Aug 2014, 08:02
4 Many United States companies believe that the rising cost of 7 08 Mar 2013, 07:15
1 Pesticides (including insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, 6 09 Feb 2011, 10:27
1 Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the 8 29 Apr 2010, 04:17
1 Purebred cows native to Mongolia produce, on average, 400 5 12 Jun 2008, 15:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by