AzPro Corporation in central New York State recently ran into trouble

Question

AzPro Corporation in central New York State recently ran into trouble when nearby towns determined that their drinking water contained levels of arsenic exceeding the current standard of 10 ppb. Arsenic was detected at one well house at an average level of 15 ppb, and there is some indication that the levels may exceed 20 ppb at some private residences.

When people hear the word arsenic, they are often likely to conjure up Agatha Christie mysteries and to associate it with a gruesome, instant death. In fact, arsenic is a component in copper, lead, and other ores, and it is often naturally present in soil, groundwater, and surface water. However, it is its use in commercial pesticides such as those manufactured by AzPro that is the cause of concern here in central New York. The belief is that the use of testing areas surrounding the AzPro plant has enabled arsenic to enter the soil for decades, and that contaminated soil has leached components of pesticides into the groundwater surrounding the plant. AzPro has not used those testing areas since 1990; its recent practices are considered state-of-the-art when it comes to public health and safety.

If people are exposed to arsenic over a long period of time, they may develop skin problems, nerve or liver damage, or high blood pressure. There is evidence that arsenic, like lead, may contribute to learning deficiencies. High levels of arsenic may even increase the risk of certain cancers, notably bladder and skin cancers.

It is important to note that the safe level (maximum contaminant level, or MCL) for arsenic was recently lowered by the state from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. All of the current readings of arsenic surrounding AzPro are well below that earlier standard. Nevertheless, citizens who are concerned are encouraged to drink bottled water, and the towns will sample their well houses for contamination monthly. If it is determined that additional water treatment is required to lower the arsenic levels, AzPro has rightly agreed to pay for the installation of related equipment.    1 
 1. The author’s attitude toward today’s AzPro could best be characterized as

(A) disgusted
(B) disapproving
(C) positive
(D) baffled
(E) fascinated

2 
 2. The third paragraph plays what role in the passage?

(A) It explains why the presence of arsenic in water might be of concern.
(B) It gives examples of heavy metals that can cause health problems.
(C) It describes where arsenic may be found in nature.
(D) It gives reasons for the use of arsenic in pesticides.
(E) It presents a possible counterargument to the author’s thesis.

3 
 3. The author of the passage would most likely agree with which of the following statements?

(A) The MCL for arsenic should have been lowered years ago.
(B) Even an MCL of 50 ppb does not pose a threat to human health.
(C) Current ppb levels of arsenic near AzPro should not cause great alarm.
(D) The testing of arsenic levels is all too often inaccurate and imprecise.
(E) Arsenic is not nearly the health threat that lead can be.

4 
 4. You might see MCLs applied to drinking water for all of these except

(A) microorganisms
(B) organic chemicals
(C) inorganic chemicals
(D) disinfectants
(E) effervescence

5 
 5. The author most likely mentions the old MCL for arsenic for what purpose?

(A) To show how standards change over time
(B) To indicate the arbitrariness of water testing
(C) To prove that AzPro violated no local standard
(D) To calm the nerves of citizens near the AzPro plant
(E) To scold the state for keeping old standards too long

RC Butler 2023  -  Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.   
Passage # 201 Date: 21-Jun-2023
 This question is part of RC Butler 2023 .  Click here for Details

Ruchi007 · Answer

Sajjad1994  What is explanation for #4?

TheDG · Answer

Sajjad1994  would greatly appreciate an explanation for #5.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

4. You might see MCLs applied to drinking water for all of these except

Explanation

MCLs, or maximum contaminant levels, are regulatory standards set by governmental bodies to ensure the safety of drinking water. These standards establish the maximum allowable concentrations of specific contaminants in drinking water supplies. The purpose of MCLs is to protect public health by minimizing the risks associated with exposure to harmful substances in drinking water.

In the given question, we are asked to identify the exception among the listed options that MCLs may not be applied to for drinking water. Let's examine each option in detail:

(A) Microorganisms: 
MCLs can be applied to microorganisms in drinking water. The presence of certain pathogenic microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites, can pose a significant health risk if consumed. MCLs help regulate and limit the concentration of these harmful microorganisms in drinking water to protect public health.

(B) Organic chemicals: 
MCLs can be applied to organic chemicals in drinking water. Organic chemicals include a wide range of substances, such as pesticides, herbicides, industrial solvents, and various synthetic compounds. These chemicals can leach into water sources and, if present above the safe levels, may cause adverse health effects. MCLs establish the maximum allowable concentrations for specific organic chemicals to ensure safe drinking water.

(C) Inorganic chemicals: 
MCLs can be applied to inorganic chemicals in drinking water. Inorganic chemicals encompass a diverse group of substances, including heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, lead, mercury), nitrates, fluoride, and various other compounds. Similar to organic chemicals, certain inorganic chemicals can be toxic and pose health risks when consumed in elevated concentrations. MCLs set limits for specific inorganic chemicals to maintain the safety of drinking water.

(D) Disinfectants: 
MCLs can be applied to disinfectants in drinking water. Disinfectants, such as chlorine and chloramine, are commonly used in water treatment to kill or inactivate microorganisms and ensure the safety of drinking water. While disinfectants themselves are important for water treatment, their byproducts, such as disinfection byproducts (DBPs), can form when disinfectants react with organic matter in water. MCLs establish limits for specific disinfection byproducts to prevent excessive exposure and associated health risks.

(E) Effervescence:  
Effervescence refers to the formation of bubbles or fizz in a liquid due to the release of gas. It is not a contaminant or a specific chemical substance. Effervescence is not typically regulated by MCLs in drinking water because it does not pose a direct health risk. While effervescence may affect the aesthetics or taste of drinking water, it does not have direct implications for public health.

Therefore, the exception among the listed options is (E) effervescence, as MCLs are not applied to regulate or limit the presence of effervescence in drinking water.

Answer: E

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. The author most likely mentions the old MCL for arsenic for what purpose?

Explanation

(A) To show how standards change over time: 
This option suggests that mentioning the old maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic is intended to demonstrate the evolution of standards over time. By stating that the MCL was recently lowered from 50 ppb to 10 ppb, it highlights that regulatory standards are not fixed and can be revised based on new scientific knowledge and understanding. This explanation focuses on the dynamic nature of standards and how they can change to adapt to current scientific understanding.

(B) To indicate the arbitrariness of water testing: 
This option suggests that mentioning the old MCL for arsenic serves to imply that water testing standards are arbitrary or random. However, the passage does not provide any information or context to support this interpretation. The focus of the passage is more on the concern about arsenic contamination and the safety measures being taken, rather than questioning the validity or arbitrariness of water testing itself. Therefore, this option does not align with the information provided in the passage.

(C) To prove that AzPro violated no local standard: 
This option suggests that mentioning the old MCL for arsenic is intended to demonstrate that AzPro Corporation did not violate any local standards. However, the passage does not mention any violation by AzPro Corporation or imply that the old standard was violated. It focuses on the concern about arsenic contamination and the potential source of contamination from AzPro's past practices. Therefore, this option does not align with the information provided in the passage.

(D) To calm the nerves of citizens near the AzPro plant:  
This option suggests that mentioning the old MCL for arsenic aims to reassure the citizens living near the AzPro plant. By emphasizing that all current readings of arsenic surrounding AzPro are well below the previous standard, the author seeks to alleviate concerns and provide a sense of reassurance regarding the safety of the drinking water. This explanation aligns with the passage, which mentions encouraging citizens to drink bottled water and the commitment of AzPro to pay for any necessary water treatment equipment. Therefore, this option is the correct explanation according to the passage.

(E) To scold the state for keeping old standards too long: 
This option suggests that mentioning the old MCL for arsenic is intended to criticize the state for maintaining outdated standards for a long time. However, the passage does not contain any indication of criticism or scolding toward the state. Instead, it focuses on the lowering of the MCL and the proactive measures being taken to address the arsenic levels. Therefore, this option does not align with the information provided in the passage.

In summary, based on the passage, the correct explanation is (D) to calm the nerves of citizens near the AzPro plant, as it aligns with the reassurance and safety measures mentioned in the passage.

Answer: D

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

AzPro Corporation in central New York State recently ran into trouble

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

AzPro Corporation in central New York State recently ran into trouble

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards