GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Nov 2018, 15:52

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 in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • All GMAT Club Tests are Free and open on November 22nd in celebration of Thanksgiving Day!

     November 22, 2018

     November 22, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open November 22nd to celebrate Thanksgiving Day! Access will be available from 0:01 AM to 11:59 PM, Pacific Time (USA)
  • Free lesson on number properties

     November 23, 2018

     November 23, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Practice the one most important Quant section - Integer properties, and rapidly improve your skills.

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 119
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Dec 2009, 10:04
8
21
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

75% (01:44) correct 25% (02:08) wrong based on 1365 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 15
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Dec 2009, 11:45
11
IMO C

IF ethylene dibromide does not take two years or longer for that damage to become detectable then it is either the new chemical or ethylene dibromide that is causing the damage..

If ethylene dibromide does takes more than 2 years then the conclusion is wrong..Then the only reason for the damage is ethylene dibromide..

Hope that helps..

If u like my post..consider it for kudos 8-)
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 143
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2012, 22:29
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 265
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 07:06
Hello,
Can someone please walk me through with this problem.

Thanks
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 78
Concentration: Sustainability, International Business
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 08:51
2
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 :)

Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 794
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2013, 09:00
1
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



GMAT Tutor
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1327
Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2015, 05:14
1
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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: Active
Affiliations: NA
Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 274
GMAT 1: 590 Q50 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V37
GPA: 3.5
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2017, 08:14
1
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 :)

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3411
Premium Member
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2018, 16:00
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.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was &nbs [#permalink] 04 Sep 2018, 16:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Because ethylene dibromide, a chemical used to fumigate grain, was

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.