It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 11:04

### 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

# At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 43 [3], given: 0

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 03:06
3
KUDOS
40
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (01:03) correct 41% (01:20) wrong based on 1635 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that_______.

(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

[Reveal] Spoiler:
This question might seem very elementary, but I have a slight problem with it. The OA is (B). It is logical, but I'm not sure why (B) is really required if the countries are not bothered whether or not specific damage can be attributed to a particular effluent. Shouldn't (D) perhaps be an option?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by hazelnut on 08 Jun 2017, 08:25, edited 2 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 43 [3], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 17 [4], given: 1

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2011, 10:13
4
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
At a recent meeting on enviromental threats off the coast of the state of Maine, most participants favored uniform controls on the quality of food fed to salmon species in fish farms located along the coast of the state. Such controls were overwhelmingly supported without regard to whether or not specific environmental damage could be linked to a particular type of food being used. What must, of course, be shown, in order to mitigate the risk of excessively restrictive contols, is that

A) all agreed upon controls that are uniform in nature will be implemented without any delay

B) all fish foods that will be the subject of controls are known to actually cause environmental damage off the coast of Maine

C) the meeting participants favoring uniform controls are primarily from an industry that completes with the salmon farmers

D) all of the chemicals that are ingredients in some of the controlled substances are known to cause environmental damage

E) the environmental damage that has historically been caused by the dangerous fish foods is not reversible in the foreseeable future, if ever

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Attachment:

cr1.png [ 115.58 KiB | Viewed 9932 times ]

Kudos [?]: 17 [4], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 132 [6], given: 21

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2011, 12:51
6
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
What must, of course, be shown, in order to mitigate the risk of excessively restrictive controls, is that ____________________

The question makes it clear that most participants are in favour of passing restrictive control measures. Also the premise states "Such controls were overwhelmingly supported without regard to whether or not specific environmental damage could be linked to a particular type of food being used." This statement can be rephrased to mean that it doesn't matters which food type causes which kind of problem, any food which causes any kind of eneviromental damage should be restricted. now the question is concerned about risk of too much of restrictive control , so only that choice which talks about lessening the risk of excessive control should be the answer.

b) Correct . - Rephrased this option says that only the foods which do cause environmental damage should be put under control. foods which don't cause problems should not be. Hence this is the right answer because it asks to completely avoid non-enviroment damaging foods to be put under restriction.

c) is not related with what we are concerned.

d) The tricky answer choice. "all of the chemicals that are ingredients in some of the controlled substances are known to cause environmental damage". we are not concerned with only some of the controlled substances but all of them.

e) This is a pessimistic choice that essentially states that damage already caused cannot be reversed. The premise and question stem is concerned about mitigating the risk of excessive control , not about saying that what has happened has happened. It asks about what can be done and not what cannot be done.

Kudos [?]: 132 [6], given: 21

Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2011, 04:20
1
KUDOS
I had a unique issue with this question. I assumed that 'What must, of course, be shown' implied that the reader/I needed to find a reason (negative assumption) that will make the countries to avoid excessively resistive controls. B and D are irrelevant with this angle. Hence, I went with C as the closest.

Only after reading the explanation, realized that it is a suggestion (a guideline) for the process so as to avoid excessively resistive controls.. B clearly wins ( probably that's why the 'of course' was included in the question)

I still feel there are two angles (author's and reader's) to understand this question. Not sure why I should choose one over the other.

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 600 [2], given: 2

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2012, 10:20
2
KUDOS
21
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition
Practice Question
Question No.: 10
Page: 119
Difficulty:

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
I am confused between B and D. does anybody clarify the wording of these 2 sentences? Particularly option D on what basis we have to eliminate this

Last edited by dentobizz on 21 Oct 2013, 22:10, edited 5 times in total.
formatting for the verbal review project

Kudos [?]: 600 [2], given: 2

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 303

Kudos [?]: 1255 [16], given: 2

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2012, 15:58
16
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
For answer choice (D), imagine Germany has been dumping mercury into its rivers, mercury which eventually reaches the North Sea.

(D) is saying that it is important that all of the mercury reach the North Sea. If mercury causes environmental damage, then it doesn't matter whether all of it reaches the North Sea. The mercury is causing damage. Therefore we can eliminate (D) based on the word 'all.'

Now let's say, Germany dumps a lot of oxidimide (just made that up) into its river. A uniform control on oxidimide would only make sense if oxidimide is shown to cause environmental damage. This is what (B) is saying - that a substance should only be subject to strict controls if it has been shown to cause environmental damage.

Hope that helps!
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 1255 [16], given: 2

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 623

Kudos [?]: 534 [5], given: 16

Location: India
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2013, 01:30
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
sandipan.mondal wrote:
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

This question might seem very elementary, but I have a slight problem with it. The OA is (B). It is logical, but I'm not sure why (B) is really required if the countries are not bothered whether or not specific damage can be attributed to a particular effluent. Shouldn't (D) perhaps be an option?

Now what makes the author say this: "What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that".

It is because of this:most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent.

The "whether or not" in the above suggests that the controls could be excessive.

So to avoid the excessive controls we need to show that "any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage" which is choice B.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com/regularcourse.php

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 534 [5], given: 16

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 116 [17], given: 3

GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2013, 10:05
17
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fozzzy wrote:
Tricky one! can anyone help out...

Argument:
Most participants favoured uniform controls on the quality on effluents in conference on environmental threats to the North Sea. This irrespective of the fact whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent.

Pre thinking:
Most participants wants the quality control will happen on all effluents irrespective of the fact whether any environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. So to avoid excessively restrictive controls only those effluents which cause environmental damage should be controlled.

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
Incorrect: Irrelevant as talks about delay and not excessively restrictive controls.

(B) Any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
Correct: this will make sure that only those substances which damage environment will be subjected to control thus preventing control on effluents which are not damaging to environment.

(C) the countries favouring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
Incorrect: Irrelevant .No relation with effluent causing damage and excessively restrictive controls.

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
Incorrect: pollutant damaging North Sea is the problem even if not all of it reached the sea.

(E) Environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
Incorrect: Irrelevant. Argument is about managing the effluent to prevent any environmental damage in future.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 116 [17], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 23 May 2014
Posts: 105

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 6

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2014, 19:45
theGame001 wrote:
I cannot understand the argument.

What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

^^ what exactly do the author mean by this?

The argument says that
most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or
not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent.

So they may start controlling effluents that may not cause env damage. This is the excessive control that author is referring to.
B says that the countries should verify whether the substance can cause damage before subjecting it to controls.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 8

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2014, 21:11
What type of cr question is this ?
Can anyone elucidate the answer based on power score cr bible ?

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality on effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that______

(A) Any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

Last edited by WoundedTiger on 19 Aug 2014, 01:51, edited 1 time in total.
Topic name not correct

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 8

Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 83

Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2014, 21:13
So there are 100 items. The quality of 50 effluents restricted to lets say 20% concentration. Now what does 'excessive restriction' mean? quality reduced to 10% concentration of those 50 effluents OR restriction now applied to 80 (instead of 50) effluents?

Please advise on how to decide where the restriction means the restriction on quality or restriction on number of effluents?

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 83

Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 193

Kudos [?]: 122 [2], given: 45

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2015, 02:58
2
KUDOS
Question is asking us "What will remove drawback "Excessive Restriction" from the plan "Restricting effluents to save north sea"

Argument :
Nation agrees - Block everything (Effluent) from entering north sea, irrespective of the nature (Whether harmful or harmless) of effluents.

Let's take some real life example.
To decrease deaths due to road accident , Stop every vehicle on road. , Now if i ask one what is your reaction to this, he/she will say "police intention is good but it may bring trouble to innocent people. Police should stop only heavy/harmful vehicle"

Exactly in same line we need to think. We need to find option, which can remove drawback from plan

POE.
(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay

That can be deployed, but it will not avoid excessive restriction.

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage

Yes, if they don't damage and still if nation blocks then it will be consider as excessive restriction. (Same as we thought above) - Make sense - Keep it aside.

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents

That is Ok, Nations need to save north sea, irrespective of the share of pollution of each nation - Out of scope

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

we need to think what will impact once plan is implemented - out of scope

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

if it is reversible, then probably we dont this restriction. So it does not answer the question in plate.

Kudos [?]: 122 [2], given: 45

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1201

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 75

Location: India
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2016, 09:29
At a recent meeting on environmental threats off the coast of the state of Maine, most participants favored uniform controls on the quality of food fed to salmon species in fish farms located along the coast of the state.

Such controls were overwhelmingly supported without regard to whether or not specific environmental damage could be linked to a particular type of food being used. What must, of course, be shown, in order to mitigate the risk of excessively restrictive controls, is that

A) all agreed upon controls that are uniform in nature will be implemented without any delay................this cannot mitigate excessive damage.

B) all fish foods that will be the subject of controls are known to actually cause environmental damage off the coast of Maine...........In this case restrictive controls are serving the purpose and there is minimal damage

C) the meeting participants favoring uniform controls are primarily from an industry that completes with the salmon farmers................this is completely out of scope

D) all of the chemicals that are ingredients in some of the controlled substances are known to cause environmental damage....................some spoils the sentence here. only few cases are addressed.

E) the environmental damage that has historically been caused by the dangerous fish foods is not reversible in the foreseeable future, if ever.................I could not decipher this properly. appeared quite ridiculous.
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Kudos [?]: 893 [0], given: 75

Manager
Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 62

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 87

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2017, 19:37

The argument states it's irrelevant if the effluents are causing damage to the environment. Thus, why would it be overly restrictive if environment damage is not being caused. It was concluded that it did not matter whether or not damage was caused, restrictions will still be in place.

That is even if no damage was caused, the controls would still be in place because it was decided.

On the other hand, D states that the chemicals did not reach the sea, thus the question about restriction doesn't come in place.
I do understand it's extreme, but if it were to be worded as some do not reach the sea then would this be correct?

gauravkaushik8591 wrote:
So there are 100 items. The quality of 50 effluents restricted to lets say 20% concentration. Now what does 'excessive restriction' mean? quality reduced to 10% concentration of those 50 effluents OR restriction now applied to 80 (instead of 50) effluents?

Please advise on how to decide where the restriction means the restriction on quality or restriction on number of effluents?

D is wrong because, in the context of the question stem, it realistically doesn't matter whether or not a given pollution has reached the area. If a toxic chemical was going to arrive in the North Sea in five months, would it be overly restrictive to uniformly ban the class of chemicals? Of course not.

It would be overly restrictive if only a few specific chemicals in the class caused damage, but the conference banned every chemical anyways, which is why B is correct.

Try to think about the logic of the problem in both mathematical and non-mathematical terms. It seems like the mathematical logic of the problem is tripping you up.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 87

Manager
Joined: 03 Jan 2017
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 4

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2017, 07:25
I think this is an evaluate question in the forms of fill the blank

My map:
conference: NS env. threats
most agreed on uniform controls of effluents
? to avoid exc. controlls:

We need to find an answer that would mention infor, based on which we will be able to evaluate if this meare helps to avoid excessive controls or not. We can test it by weakening as well strenghtening

A: talks time with delay or without, does not deal with number of controls
B: talks if they are going to control some that actually cause damage and the ones that do not. If we strenghten: they will avoid, if weaken, i.e. negate it: they will do too many controls
C: this does not affect argument anyhow
D: this is absolute trap, it brings us to the question if any control shoulb be placed at all
E: this is simply out of scope

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 4

Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 280

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 51

Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2017, 02:59
Reasoning: To prevent pollutants from entering the North Sea, countries decide to control the quality of effluents. They need to control
only those effluents that cause environmental damage. There is no need to restrict harmless effluents.

_________________

Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 51

Re: At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North   [#permalink] 22 Aug 2017, 02:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by