It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 15:25

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 888

Kudos [?]: 718 [0], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Dec 2011, 02:09
C
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 718 [0], given: 44

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 256

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 110

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2011, 12:18
C is clearly the best answer here. If it takes two years for the symptoms to become visible, then the symptoms of the use of ethylene dibromide should start becoming visible now.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 110

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 15

Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2012, 07:14
IMO C. Negate and the conclusion will fall apart.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 15

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 16

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

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2012, 06:43
IMO C. But IMO this is not a 700 level problem. May be a 600 level.

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

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 888

Kudos [?]: 718 [0], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jun 2012, 18:57
bsv180985 wrote:
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

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

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.

B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain processing plants.

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.

D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.

E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.


Clearly the correct choice is C, if the ethylene dibromide (ED) cause nerve damage (ND) 2 year or longer for that damage to become detectable, we cannot confirm that the new chemical also cause the ND, because ND is caused by ED.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 718 [0], given: 44

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 9

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

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2012, 08:48
I chose C. Was in between A and C but ultimately chose C instead of A because the passage didn't talk about any distinguishing factor about nerve damage. So choice A's point on different kind of nerve damage didn't make sense to me.

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 193

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 22

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2012, 23:29
A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause. - Nerve damage in general is discussed in the passage rather than the type of nerve damage. Insignificant to the current context - Incorrect
B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain processing plants. - The effect of those fumigant on the workers are being discussed rather than the level of safety - Irrelevant - Incorrect
C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable. - Assuming that Ethylene dibromide takes two years to cause nerve damage and it takes two years to get detected, then it can be said that Ethylene dibromide is the sole culprit for the nerve damage. Since new cases emerge after changing the fumigants, the new chemical also causes nerve damage - Correct
D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage. - The passage clearly mentions that new cases of nerve damage have been detected. It has nothing to do with the old workers working at the plant - Incorrect
E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage. - Irrelevant information - Out of context - Incorrect

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 22

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 329

Kudos [?]: 1031 [0], given: 136

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 08:06
Hello,
Can someone please walk me through with this problem.

Thanks
_________________

+1 Kudos me, Help me unlocking GMAT Club Tests

Kudos [?]: 1031 [0], given: 136

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 80

Kudos [?]: 96 [2], given: 2

Concentration: Sustainability, International Business
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 09:51
2
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
imhimanshu wrote:
Hello,
Can someone please walk me through with this problem.

Thanks



Sure! I can give this a shot.

Ok, this questions asks for the assumption. Lets find the premises and conclusion first:

Premise 1: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago.

Counter premise: however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly.

Conclusion: Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

Now, we have to find the assumption on which the conclusion, i.e ethylene bromide was wrongly blamed, is based.
Maybe a diagram will help?

eth bromide---> caused problems
.
.
After 2 yrs
.
.
Switched to another chemical---> problem still exists!

So--> ethyl bromide is NOT the root cause of this problem

Now, lets look at the answer choices: (Remember, we have to focus on the conclusion, i.e ethyl bromide is not the root cause)

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause. Not true because this tells us about the new chemical and a if scenario. But we already know that the new chemical causes nerve damage. Besides this wont help us conclude that eth bromide is NOT a cause for damag

B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain processing plants.
This is too broad to claim that no chemical is safe

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
If you remember the premise, it says that after 2 yrs workers switched to a new chemical. Which means that it takes less than 2 years to detect the damage caused by ethylene bromine. So this is the correct answer choice
Another way to prove this is the correct answer is to negate it. If we said that it takes MORE than 2 years for ethylene bromine to be detectable, then we cannot prove if it was ethylene bromine or the new chemical that caused the damage, since we already switched to the new chemical within 2 years. So this statement is a good assumptio
n
D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
This would actually weaken the argument because if the workers worked, there is no way of proving which chemical caused the damage
E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.
Not an assumption, because it does not directly support the conclusion which is: ethy bromine is NOT the root cause fot the damage.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Kudos if I helped :)

Kudos [?]: 96 [2], given: 2

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 831 [1], given: 5

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 10:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
It looks like someone was faster than me but since I did this on my phone (while watching my son's soccer game 0-0 tie) I'm still to post it :)
bsv180985 wrote:
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

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

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.

B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain processing plants.

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.

D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.

E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.


Remember that assumptions fill the gap between premises and the conclusion. Here the premises are 1) that plants switched away from ED TWO years ago because ED was blamed for nerve damage and 2) that the percentage of NEW nerve cases has not dropped. The conclusion says that either ED was not the problem or that the new chemical is just as bad. The assumption will connect these premises to the conclusion and will make the conclusion more valid.

A-The argument does not discuss any difference in types of nerve damage only the percentage of cases - out of scope
B-Completely out of scope
C- In order to conclude that ED was wrongly blamed for NEW cases after the change TWO years ago we have to assume that is doesn't take time for these nerve damages to be detected. - correct
D- out of scope - doesn't help us with the source of nerve damage at this plant
E- again out of scope because we are concerned about nerve damage cases and this plant that no longer uses ED.

KW

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile



Kudos [?]: 831 [1], given: 5

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10119

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2014, 21:44
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Dec 2014
Posts: 67

Kudos [?]: 152 [1], given: 7

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2015, 23:39
1
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of
nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to
other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these
plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore,
either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

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

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from
any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.

B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grainprocessing
plants.

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that
damage to become detectable.

D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being
diagnosed with nerve damage.

E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high
rate of nerve damage.

Last edited by sannidhya on 11 May 2015, 03:11, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 152 [1], given: 7

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Tutor
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 1953 [1], given: 6

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2015, 06:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
I think you included the wrong OA here in the spoiler - it's C, not B. The plant changed from one possibly nerve-damaging chemical to another 2 years ago. But the proportion of workers suffering nerve damage has not changed. The argument concludes that the change made no difference. The argument is assuming that 2 years is a long enough time window to judge whether the change was effective - if nerve damage only appears, say, 10 years after exposure to the chemicals, we wouldn't be able to say anything about the change in chemical after only 2 years. That's why C is an assumption here.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Kudos [?]: 1953 [1], given: 6

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10119

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2015, 02:53
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10119

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2015, 18:47
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 354

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 70

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2016, 22:46
KyleWiddison wrote:
It looks like someone was faster than me but since I did this on my phone (while watching my son's soccer game 0-0 tie) I'm still to post it :)
bsv180985 wrote:
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly. Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

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

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.

B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grain processing plants.

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.

D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.

E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.


Remember that assumptions fill the gap between premises and the conclusion. Here the premises are 1) that plants switched away from ED TWO years ago because ED was blamed for nerve damage and 2) that the percentage of NEW nerve cases has not dropped. The conclusion says that either ED was not the problem or that the new chemical is just as bad. The assumption will connect these premises to the conclusion and will make the conclusion more valid.

A-The argument does not discuss any difference in types of nerve damage only the percentage of cases - out of scope
B-Completely out of scope
C- In order to conclude that ED was wrongly blamed for NEW cases after the change TWO years ago we have to assume that is doesn't take time for these nerve damages to be detected. - correct
D- out of scope - doesn't help us with the source of nerve damage at this plant
E- again out of scope because we are concerned about nerve damage cases and this plant that no longer uses ED.

KW

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device


Reconfirmation of (C) as correct answer -
Negating (C) :
If the damage effects are detected after two years, then what damages we saw in the last two years, can't be due to new chemical fumigant. It has to be due to effects of ED. So if we negate (C), the conclusion falls flat - note the conclusion says " Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage. "
Hence correct answer = (C)

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 70

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Status: DONE!
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 408

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 283

Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2016, 09:26
C is correct. Here's why:

Given the choices, you'll get it down to a 50-50 between A and C

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause. --> we don't care that the damage is different, but this doesn't indicate that eth. dibromide is off the hook or if new chemical is the cause

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable. --> if eth. di took two years or longer to become detectable, then the argument falls flat - hence, CORRECT!

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 283

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10119

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2016, 03:27
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 109

GPA: 3.92
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2016, 12:05
lawiniecke wrote:
C is correct. Here's why:

Given the choices, you'll get it down to a 50-50 between A and C

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause. --> we don't care that the damage is different, but this doesn't indicate that eth. dibromide is off the hook or if new chemical is the cause

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage, it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable. --> if eth. di took two years or longer to become detectable, then the argument falls flat - hence, CORRECT!


Completely agree. Plus, if you negate A, it doesn't affect the argument whatsoever. The same cannot be said for C.

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 109

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: Active
Affiliations: NA
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 322

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 57

GMAT 1: 590 Q50 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.5
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2017, 09:14
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hi..
Yes , the correct answer is C

Premise : Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was blamed for the high rate of nerve damage suffered by people who work in grain-processing plants, many such plants switched to other chemical fumigants two years ago. Since then, however, the percentage of workers at these plants who were newly diagnosed with nerve damage has not dropped significantly

Conclusion : Therefore, either ethylene dibromide was wrongly blamed or else the new chemicals also cause nerve damage.

A. If the new chemicals cause nerve damage, the nerve damage caused would be different from any nerve damage that ethylene dibromide may cause.
it weakens the conclusion by adding new information that new chemicals will cause different kind of nerve damage than ethylene dibromide. Opposite answer

B. There are no chemical fumigants that are completely safe for workers in grainprocessing plants.
Not relevant

C. If ethylene dibromide causes nerve damage; it does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable.
It correctly state the assumption that if negated will weaken the conclusion. Lets say if ethylene dibromide caused nerve damage can be detected after two years the person got infected then the current nerve damage cases could be because of that and then conclusion that dibromide was wrongly blamed will be wrong. So to fill the gap between premise and conclusion and to support the conclusion this statement has to be true

D. Workers at grain-processing plants typically continue to work there even after being diagnosed with nerve damage.
Out of scope

E. Workers at grain-processing plants that still use ethylene dibromide continue to have a high rate of nerve damage.
Out of scope
_________________

#If you like my post , please encourage me by giving Kudos :)

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 57

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain,   [#permalink] 21 Mar 2017, 09:14

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.