It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 20:58

### 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

# Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 501

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Location: 55405

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2004, 11:58
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (02:48) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word `explosion' and use the phrase `energetic disassembly' instead. In fact, the word `explosion' elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore of the two terms, `explosion' is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

a) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable
reactions to the term `explosion' outweigh the drawbacks, if any,
arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
b) The phrase `energetic disassembly' has not so far been used as a
substitute for the word `explosion' in the kind of discussion at issue.
c) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the
participants is more important than how it is put into words.
d) The only reason that people would have for using `energetic
disassembly' in place of `explosion' is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
e) The phrase `energetic disassembly' is not necessarily out of
place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 957

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

Location: Florida

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2004, 12:18
A

the only thing that I was able to link was "elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention"

i love you for throwing such a question

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4284

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2004, 13:39
A also. If you negate A, there is no point in claiming that it is preferable to use the term 'explosion'
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2004, 14:46
A makes more sense than D. Negating D does not break the argument.

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 501

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Location: 55405

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2004, 18:03
A is correct.

I thought D and E were both pretty solid choices.

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 10

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

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2016, 05:05
My intuition tells me that right answer is A.

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

Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of   [#permalink] 11 Apr 2016, 05:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by