Last visit was: 15 Jul 2024, 14:12 It is currently 15 Jul 2024, 14:12
Close
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
VP
VP
Joined: 29 Aug 2012
Status:Chasing my MBB Dream!
Posts: 1055
Own Kudos [?]: 6330 [8]
Given Kudos: 330
Location: United States (DC)
WE:General Management (Aerospace and Defense)
Send PM
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 504
Own Kudos [?]: 642 [0]
Given Kudos: 61
Send PM
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 793
Own Kudos [?]: 2604 [2]
Given Kudos: 567
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Send PM
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 259
Own Kudos [?]: 177 [0]
Given Kudos: 342
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
A public health organization has proposed preventing further degradation of air quality through tougher emissions standards on automobiles.


The proposed standards will decrease the incidence of asthma and other respiratory ailments.

Tougher standards than those that are currently in place, however, will require expensive modifications to automobiles now on the road and will add to the cost of new automobiles.

The costs of further reducing emissions will outweigh the medical costs saved as a result of the decrease in asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.


Therefore, there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions.


economic rationale => country will save something out of it.

what if we can introduce productivity factor in the whole scenrio. People more healthy => more efficient ,more productive => economy growth.

what if we can connect "reducing emission" to "high export" : Like some nation that import from the nation/ economy we talking about, and if they introduuce tougher emissions standards that matches to their own standard, they will buy from the the nation/ economy.



Which of the following, if true, would undermine the conclusion that there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions?


E. Other costs, such as lost wages, incurred by those who suffer from respiratory illness caused by automobile emissions are far greater than the medical costs they incur.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
I got this Question... Still can anyone please explain what is wrong with Option A....
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 450
Own Kudos [?]: 364 [0]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
pratik1709 wrote:
I got this Question... Still can anyone please explain what is wrong with Option A....



conclusion ==there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions--we need to weaken

we need to prove that there is some economic benefit , if laws are amended or added ...

Now A is simply telling --economic factors should not control the decision making process.-- it does not weaken conclusion. it is not pointing that if laws are amended , there will be some benefit ...As rightly said earlier , this is kind of opinion ..
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [1]
Given Kudos: 56
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Hi , sobby

Why can't Opinion be correct answer choice?
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 450
Own Kudos [?]: 364 [2]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
pratik1709 wrote:
Hi , sobby

Why can't Opinion be correct answer choice?


lets take it this way :

Me:there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions.--means no monetary benefit....

Now u have to undermine my statement..Giving at least some counter point that can prove yes , we have monetary benefit

You :In matters of public health, economic factors should not control the decision making process

My question:

Now are u undermining my argument ??have u given any reason that reduction in emission is beneficial...???just you are putting a point of view ...

concentrate on question stem , what we need to undermine ....Then u ll see , u are actually talking some thing not specific.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Send PM
A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
sobby wrote:
pratik1709 wrote:
Hi , sobby

Why can't Opinion be correct answer choice?








lets take it this way :

Me:there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions.--means no monetary benefit....

Now u have to undermine my statement..Giving at least some counter point that can prove yes , we have monetary benefit

You :In matters of public health, economic factors should not control the decision making process

My question:

Now are u undermining my argument ??have u given any reason that reduction in emission is beneficial...???just you are putting a point of view ...

concentrate on question stem , what we need to undermine ....Then u ll see , u are actually talking some thing not specific.




sobby

Thanks buddy. Got your reasoning..

Just to cement my understanding, this is specific case we are talking about. However in general, do we have kind rule that opinion can't be correct answer choice? Is that case?
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 450
Own Kudos [?]: 364 [0]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
pratik1709 wrote:
sobby wrote:
pratik1709 wrote:
Hi , sobby

Why can't Opinion be correct answer choice?








lets take it this way :

Me:there is no economic rationale for requiring further reductions in automobile emissions.--means no monetary benefit....

Now u have to undermine my statement..Giving at least some counter point that can prove yes , we have monetary benefit

You :In matters of public health, economic factors should not control the decision making process

My question:

Now are u undermining my argument ??have u given any reason that reduction in emission is beneficial...???just you are putting a point of view ...

concentrate on question stem , what we need to undermine ....Then u ll see , u are actually talking some thing not specific.




sobby

Thanks buddy. Got your reasoning..

Just to cement my understanding, this is specific case we are talking about. However in general, do we have kind rule that opinion can't be correct answer choice? Is that case?


No , we don't have rule as such ...Here we have specific conclusion to weaken so ,option A was out of context ...
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: (A)
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V26
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
sayantanc2k - Could you please why option B is wrong?

I chose the correct option but still i want to enhance my pre-thinking skills.

As for this weakening question we have to basically not refute the statement but rather show that there is some economical benefit for the proposed laws. (Please correct me if i am wrong here)

Could you please help with me with the B and E option as why E is the OA.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 457
Own Kudos [?]: 768 [0]
Given Kudos: 118
Location: France
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 3.82
WE:Consulting (Other)
Send PM
Re: A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
The words "would undermine the conclusion" indicate that this is a Weaken question. The correct answer will make it less likely that the conclusion follows from the stated evidence.

The conclusion is that there is no economic justification for the proposal. The evidence is that the costs of the proposal outweigh the saved medical costs from asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.

Notice how extreme the language of the conclusion is, claiming there is "no economic rationale," even though the evidence just mentioned medical costs. The author is assuming that there are no economic costs involved besides the stated medical ones. The correct choice will attack the author's assumption. It will suggest some other economic costs, besides the medical costs mentioned in the evidence, that undermine the conclusion that there is no economic rational for further reductions in automobile emissions.

(E) suggests that there are costs involved besides the medical costs the author admits to. This undermines the conclusion that there is no economic rationale for reducing emissions, making (E) the correct choice.

(A) is incorrect because whether or not economic factors should control the decision making process, the author argues only on economic factors. The correct choice must attack the argument on its own terms.

(B) makes an irrelevant comparison. Both costs mentioned in (B) are already accounted for by the author in the total costs of reducing emissions. All that matters to the author's argument is the total costs, not the breakdown of the costs.

(C) is a 180. If the medical costs will decrease, then it is more likely they will be outweighed by the costs of modifying automobiles and additional costs to new cars. This would strengthen the author's argument.

(D) is irrelevant. However the costs of the modifications that will be required compare to voluntary modifications consumers are already making, the question is whether the overall costs, in aggregate, outweigh the medical costs. (D) has nothing to do with that.

Posted from my mobile device
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Dec 2021
Posts: 312
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 240
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.95
WE:Real Estate (Consulting)
Send PM
A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
KarishmaB

Can you please share your evaluation of option D. I did not mark this option, however, I am unable to come up with a good reasoning to eliminate it. Giving it consideration since it is weaken question, so even 1% weaken can be good answer choice so want to be thorough with the reasoning
GMAT Club Bot
A public health organization has proposed preventing further [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6981 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts