Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!
06 Jun 2022, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
83% (01:42) correct
17%
(01:32)
wrong
based on 60
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A worldwide ban on the production of certain ozone-destroying chemicals would provide only an illusion of protection. Quantities of such chemicals, already produced, exist as coolants in millions of refrigerators. When they reach the ozone layer in the atmosphere, their action cannot be halted. So there is no way to prevent these chemicals from damaging the ozone layer further.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone.
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone.
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused
06 Jun 2022, 08:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO E
A worldwide ban on the production of certain ozone-destroying chemicals would provide only an illusion of protection. Quantities of such chemicals, already produced, exist as coolants in millions of refrigerators. When they reach the ozone layer in the atmosphere, their action cannot be halted. So there is no way to prevent these chemicals from damaging the ozone layer further.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators. --> it says banning is the only option but does not weaken the argument.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone. --> Supports the argument
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused--> if the coolants are reused we do not produce any more coolants thus the banning actually works and its not just an illusion--> This Weakness the argument
A worldwide ban on the production of certain ozone-destroying chemicals would provide only an illusion of protection. Quantities of such chemicals, already produced, exist as coolants in millions of refrigerators. When they reach the ozone layer in the atmosphere, their action cannot be halted. So there is no way to prevent these chemicals from damaging the ozone layer further.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators. --> it says banning is the only option but does not weaken the argument.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone. --> Supports the argument
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused--> if the coolants are reused we do not produce any more coolants thus the banning actually works and its not just an illusion--> This Weakness the argument
Moderators:
