Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 23:12

### 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

# A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56260
A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2019, 07:42
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

78% (01:23) correct 22% (01:38) wrong based on 145 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that it claims will reduce the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts. A study by the company showed that the rate of erosion was low on a road cut where the foam was applied.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the company's conclusion?

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 227
Re: A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2019, 07:55
1
IMO D

prethink: if the condition of test and application are not the same, be it place/chemical/simulation, than conclusion gets weakened.
D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.
_________________
"Press +1 KUDOS"

Be very critical of my Post
Ask as many questions of my post possible
VP
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 1002
Location: India
A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 06 Jan 2019, 23:37
1
Bunuel wrote:
A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that it claims will reduce the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts. A study by the company showed that the rate of erosion was low on a road cut where the foam was applied.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the company's conclusion?

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.

Inline are my two cents

Conclusion -> New type of foam spray is responsible for reducing the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts

We have to look for an answer option which will say it isn't the new type of the foam it is something else which is responsible for the reduction.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.
This is irrelevant as we are trying to find another reason for the reduction, whereas this is talking about the material.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.
It is talking about the effect, we need to find another cause.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.
Other foams is out of scope

My bottom 2 were A and B

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.
This is talking about the effect, we have to give another cause.
*Correcting the reasoning after a deliberation*, Road cuts is the correct reason for the weakening the conclusion.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.
This weakens by saying that, reapplication of the foam was the reason of the reduction and not the foam.
*Correcting the reasoning after a deliberation*, Broad scope.

_________________
If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.

Originally posted by KanishkM on 05 Jan 2019, 08:06.
Last edited by KanishkM on 06 Jan 2019, 23:37, edited 1 time in total.
VP
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 1002
Location: India
Re: A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2019, 22:35
KanishkM wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that it claims will reduce the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts. A study by the company showed that the rate of erosion was low on a road cut where the foam was applied.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the company's conclusion?

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.

Inline are my two cents

Conclusion -> New type of foam spray is responsible for reducing the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts

We have to look for an answer option which will say it isn't the new type of the foam it is something else which is responsible for the reduction.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.
This is irrelevant as we are trying to find another reason for the reduction, whereas this is talking about the material.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.
It is talking about the effect, we need to find another cause.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.
Other foams is out of scope

My bottom 2 were A and B

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.
This is talking about the effect, we have to give another cause.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.
This weakens by saying that, reapplication of the foam was the reason of the reduction and not the foam.

Was B incorrect because of the broad scope ?
_________________
If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 227
Re: A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2019, 22:47
1
KanishkM wrote:
KanishkM wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that it claims will reduce the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts. A study by the company showed that the rate of erosion was low on a road cut where the foam was applied.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the company's conclusion?

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.

Inline are my two cents

Conclusion -> New type of foam spray is responsible for reducing the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts

We have to look for an answer option which will say it isn't the new type of the foam it is something else which is responsible for the reduction.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.
This is irrelevant as we are trying to find another reason for the reduction, whereas this is talking about the material.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.
It is talking about the effect, we need to find another cause.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.
Other foams is out of scope

My bottom 2 were A and B

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.
This is talking about the effect, we have to give another cause.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.
This weakens by saying that, reapplication of the foam was the reason of the reduction and not the foam.

Was B incorrect because of the broad scope ?

hi

option B is correct strengthener, because even if reapplied it will reduce the rate of erosion.

However, A states that rate of erosion is already less and will not be affected by foam application

D: I read it as "The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study with FOAM was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.---thereby I commited mistake

Lesson learned , be slow and dont anticipate to much while analysing answer choices
_________________
"Press +1 KUDOS"

Be very critical of my Post
Ask as many questions of my post possible
VP
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 1002
Location: India
Re: A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2019, 22:58
Yash312 wrote:

hi

option B is correct strengthener, because even if reapplied it will reduce the rate of erosion.

However, A states that rate of erosion is already less and will not be affected by foam application

D: I read it as "The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study with FOAM was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.---thereby I commited mistake

Lesson learned , be slow and dont anticipate to much while analysing answer choices

I incorrectly wrote that A was talking about an effect, whereas it was giving another reason for the fault in the road(This was the cause).

I removed D, as it was talking about computer simulation models.It was talking about the effect, we needed to find another cause.
Since it's a "most weaken" question, D is not the best reason.
_________________
If you notice any discrepancy in my reasoning, please let me know. Lets improve together.

Quote which i can relate to.
Many of life's failures happen with people who do not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 227
Re: A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2019, 23:37

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.

Modified D:The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study WITH FOAM was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.

please suggest modified D would gave been correct?
_________________
"Press +1 KUDOS"

Be very critical of my Post
Ask as many questions of my post possible
Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 751
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 06 Jan 2019, 02:42
D is comparing with what is expected with computer models. I would say that this is an irrelevant comparison as we don't know if computer models are reliable or not.

Option (A) here is the best choice. If the road cuts are less susceptible to erosion even without the foam spray .. it weakens the claim that road cuts with foam spray applied are less erroded due to the foam spray.

I hope it is clear now.

Quote:
@Yash312: But i have a doubt in option A....If the road cuts are less susceptible to erosion even without the foam spray....(but in passage it is mentioned that foam spray lowers the rate of erosion)
so even if the road but are less susceptible to corrosion, but still the foam spray will lower the erosion of an already less road cut erosion....
does it not make option A, a strengthener than

First of all, we are looking to weaken the argument and not strengthen it.

Second, imagine this, if I say boxing makes all Roman men strong. And ask you to weaken the above.

Would the statement-All Roman men are strong even those that do not know boxing. weaken it?

You might say that.. "Roman men might be strong as it is and boxing might make them stronger". This reasoning is false... As when you claim "roman men are strong as it is" you already weaken the original claim of boxing is what makes Roman men strong

This is why A cannot be ignored.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)

Originally posted by Gladiator59 on 06 Jan 2019, 01:14.
Last edited by Gladiator59 on 06 Jan 2019, 02:42, edited 1 time in total.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56260
Re: A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2019, 05:10
Bunuel wrote:
A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that it claims will reduce the rate of erosion from the walls of road cuts. A study by the company showed that the rate of erosion was low on a road cut where the foam was applied.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the company's conclusion?

A. Road cuts similar to the one studied typically show low rates of erosion without the foam.

B. Because the foam itself weathers, the foam would have to be reapplied every 4 years to order to maintain protection against erosion.

C. Studies by the company that produces the material are sometimes unreliable because of conflicts of interest.

D. The rate of erosion from the road cut in the study was greater than expected based on computer simulation models.

E. Other foams made from similar materials have failed to halt erosion from certain types of road cuts.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

A

Conclusion: The foam will reduce erosion from road cuts

Evidence: On a particular road cut to which the foam was applied, the erosion rate was low. The critical assumption is that that erosion rate on the road that was studied is lower than it would have been without the foam. If that's not true, then the effectiveness of the foam is in doubt.

By pointing out that road cuts similar to the one tested normally have low rates of erosion without the foam, (A) gives us reason to believe that the erosion on this road would have been the same without the foam. That calls the assumption into question and weakens the argument. (B) is concerned with the long-term use of the foam and its maintenance; even if true, it doesn't contradict the conclusion that the foam will lower erosion at the time that it is applied. (C) doesn't indicate whether this study is unreliable, so it is irrelevant. (D) is concerned with an erosion prediction model made by a computer simulation; the fact that the foam is less effective than predicted doesn't mean it's not effective at all. (E) is concerned with other foams, not the one under study.
_________________
Re: A chemical company recently introduced a new type of foam spray that   [#permalink] 15 Jan 2019, 05:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by