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.
Apr 2808:00 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.
07 Dec 2020, 07:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
63% (01:43) correct
37%
(01:49)
wrong
based on 451
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Although air pollution was previously thought to exist almost exclusively in our nation’s cities, the recent increase in the number of persons suffering from illnesses attributed to excessive air pollution leaves us no choice but to conclude that other, nonurban areas are now affected.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion of the argument above?
(A) The nation’s cities have seen a marked decrease in levels of air pollution.
(B) The nation has experienced a sharp decrease in the number of people moving out of its cities.
(C) Illnesses due to air pollution are among the least common causes of death to urban dwellers.
(D) Many illnesses previously thought unrelated to air pollution are now considered to be caused by it.
(E) As a result of the problems in urban areas, nonurban areas have passed strict pollution control measures.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion of the argument above?
(A) The nation’s cities have seen a marked decrease in levels of air pollution.
(B) The nation has experienced a sharp decrease in the number of people moving out of its cities.
(C) Illnesses due to air pollution are among the least common causes of death to urban dwellers.
(D) Many illnesses previously thought unrelated to air pollution are now considered to be caused by it.
(E) As a result of the problems in urban areas, nonurban areas have passed strict pollution control measures.
07 Dec 2020, 07:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. If cities have seen a decrease in air pollution level, that doesn't weaken our case. It is either a strengthener or neutral at best.
B. This isn't related to our argument, since deals with the disease of people living in the city. If fewer people are moving out of the city, that might spike the disease in cities only and not the non-urban areas.
C. This is irrelevant since we are not concerned with deaths, but just the disease affecting people.
D. This is a weakener since, more diseases are being attributed to air pollution than before. So previously if people suffered from a disease that was thought to have some other cause, now the cause of the disease is identified as air pollution. So it doesn't mean that air pollution has increased considerably.
E. This is again unrelated since passage of pollution control laws is not relevant to actual increase in air pollution.
IMO - option D
Posted from my mobile device
B. This isn't related to our argument, since deals with the disease of people living in the city. If fewer people are moving out of the city, that might spike the disease in cities only and not the non-urban areas.
C. This is irrelevant since we are not concerned with deaths, but just the disease affecting people.
D. This is a weakener since, more diseases are being attributed to air pollution than before. So previously if people suffered from a disease that was thought to have some other cause, now the cause of the disease is identified as air pollution. So it doesn't mean that air pollution has increased considerably.
E. This is again unrelated since passage of pollution control laws is not relevant to actual increase in air pollution.
IMO - option D
Posted from my mobile device
07 Dec 2020, 07:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise - The recent increase in the number of persons suffering from illnesses is attributed to excessive air pollution.
Conclusion - The non urban areas are now affected with air pollution.
Prethink - The conclusion relies on the number of person suffering from illness.
Assumption - The recent increase in the number of persons suffering is primarily due to the illness of non-urban people.
To weaken the argument's conclusion, we should look for the choice that goes against this assumption.
(A) The nation’s cities have seen a marked decrease in levels of air pollution.
The conclusion relies on the increased number of person suffering from illness.
If cities have seen a marked decrease in levels of air pollution and we are sure that there is an excessive air pollution, we must believe that the air-pollution affected the non-urban areas. Strengthen the conclusion.
(B) The nation has experienced a sharp decrease in the number of people moving out of its cities.
The premise says about the total increase in the number of persons suffering from illness.
This option actually just says that the number migrating outside the cities is much lesser (but still the total got increased). Hence,the number increased either within the city or non urban areas. Nothing else can be concluded.
(C) Illnesses due to air pollution are among the least common causes of death to urban dwellers.
The severity of illness is not a concern.
(D) Many illnesses previously thought unrelated to air pollution are now considered to be caused by it.
It actually says that the the increase in the number might not be actually because of excessive pollution but because of the way the cause was considered. Weakens the cause of the conclusion that non urban areas are now affected with air pollution.
(E) As a result of the problems in urban areas, nonurban areas have passed strict pollution control measures.
What happened to the measures? did they succeed? We don't know. We can't comment the current situation of non-urban areas.
IMO D
Conclusion - The non urban areas are now affected with air pollution.
Prethink - The conclusion relies on the number of person suffering from illness.
Assumption - The recent increase in the number of persons suffering is primarily due to the illness of non-urban people.
To weaken the argument's conclusion, we should look for the choice that goes against this assumption.
Quote:
(A) The nation’s cities have seen a marked decrease in levels of air pollution.
The conclusion relies on the increased number of person suffering from illness.
If cities have seen a marked decrease in levels of air pollution and we are sure that there is an excessive air pollution, we must believe that the air-pollution affected the non-urban areas. Strengthen the conclusion.
(B) The nation has experienced a sharp decrease in the number of people moving out of its cities.
The premise says about the total increase in the number of persons suffering from illness.
This option actually just says that the number migrating outside the cities is much lesser (but still the total got increased). Hence,the number increased either within the city or non urban areas. Nothing else can be concluded.
(C) Illnesses due to air pollution are among the least common causes of death to urban dwellers.
The severity of illness is not a concern.
(D) Many illnesses previously thought unrelated to air pollution are now considered to be caused by it.
It actually says that the the increase in the number might not be actually because of excessive pollution but because of the way the cause was considered. Weakens the cause of the conclusion that non urban areas are now affected with air pollution.
(E) As a result of the problems in urban areas, nonurban areas have passed strict pollution control measures.
What happened to the measures? did they succeed? We don't know. We can't comment the current situation of non-urban areas.
Quote:
IMO D
