It is currently 22 Jun 2017, 21:08

### 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

# CR: air pollutants

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 550
Location: India

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 18:28
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Archit143 wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
Its clearly asked in the question that we have to undermine both.....hence there cannot be any compromise with undermining just one.
I think C undermines best as it says there was no export hence a potential foreign country market remains unexploited which leads to weakening in terms of economics.
Second Its clearly stated that even the new cars also cause pollution and hence there is no reason to think that these new cars which will be sold only in the home county will not spread pollution.
Hence i think option C finds a mid way pathway to weaken both. we must not forget an option need not weaken 100% .....
E IMO cannot be an option as it is specifically mentioned in the question that we have to weaken both the aims not just. We cannot rephrase the question as we like.

Dear Archit143,

Tell me what does the following mean?

It is not likely that both of the aims will be met.

Hi
Its clear enough "It is not likely that both of the aims will be met...".
Moreover the question asks to select an option that weaken both aims of the plan.....

I understand the source of confusion. Consider the sentence: It is likely that he understands both English and French, and consider the sentence: It is not likely he understands both English and French.

Does not the second sentence imply that he probably understands only one of them?

In general when you negate something that refers to two things or persons, you imply that only one of them is referred to.
_________________

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

Classroom and Online Coaching

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1082
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 18:37
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?
The question stem states which of the following will show that if planned incentive is implemented both the cited aims will be met.....Even if neglect the if part it comes out to be Which of the following will weaken the planned incentive to achieve both of its goals.
How can than we rephrase from our comfort and say it just says to weaken one of the goal
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 550
Location: India

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 19:29
Archit143 wrote:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?
The question stem states which of the following will show that if planned incentive is implemented both the cited aims will be met.....Even if neglect the if part it comes out to be Which of the following will weaken the planned incentive to achieve both of its goals.
How can than we rephrase from our comfort and say it just says to weaken one of the goal

Ok, I will keep it simple. What does "not both" mean?

Does it mean:

(1) neither
or
(2) only one of them
_________________

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

Classroom and Online Coaching

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 550
Location: India

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 19:48
Archit143 wrote:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?
The question stem states which of the following will show that if planned incentive is implemented both the cited aims will be met.....Even if neglect the if part it comes out to be Which of the following will weaken the planned incentive to achieve both of its goals.
How can than we rephrase from our comfort and say it just says to weaken one of the goal

Also to mean "none of the two aims will be achieved" , we use neither of the two and not both.
_________________

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

Classroom and Online Coaching

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1382
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 05:54
Agree with you Sri.
Moreover, apart from E, none of the answer choices seem even close being the answer.
_________________
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10167

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2014, 19:50
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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 576
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2015, 01:55
Verbalbot please bump this Official CR question
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Director
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 908
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98

### Show Tags

20 May 2016, 05:47
lexis wrote:
Relax with easy CR question.

Automobile emissions are a significant source of air pollutants, and cars over five years old typically generate significantly greater amounts of pollutants than newer cars. In Torinia, which has recently built its first automobile manufacturing plant, most cars are over five years old. Aiming to boost Torinia's economy and reduce air pollution, the government plans to introduce incentives for Torinians to scrap their old cars every five years and replace them with new ones.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the likelihood that the planned incentives, if implemented, will achieve both of the cited aims?

(A) Without the implementation of the planned incentives, most Torinians who own an old car would be unlikely to buy a new car.
(B) Torinia's automobile plant manufactures car models that typically generate smaller amounts of air pollutants than most similarly sized car models manufactured elsewhere.
(C) The new cars produced in Torinia are not likely to be exported to other countries.
(D) The largest source of atmospheric pollutants in Torinia is not automobile emissions, but emissions from power plants.
(E) The manufacture and the scrapping of cars each generate significant amounts of air pollutants.

Conclusion- Replacing and scrapping old cars will reduce air pollution.
We have to weaken this conclusion .

(A) Without the implementation of the planned incentives, most Torinians who own an old car would be unlikely to buy a new car. What about effects on pollution?
(B) Torinia's automobile plant manufactures car models that typically generate smaller amounts of air pollutants than most similarly sized car models manufactured elsewhere. We are not concerned about cars anywhere else.
(C) The new cars produced in Torinia are not likely to be exported to other countries. What about pollution? The cars are not exported out implies that people will buy the cars and scrap old cars? This strengths the argument instead of weakening if people will buy and use the new cars.
(D) The largest source of atmospheric pollutants in Torinia is not automobile emissions, but emissions from power plants. But, using new cars will reduce pollution by at least small percentage.
(E) The manufacture and the scrapping of cars each generate significant amounts of air pollutants. If scrapping generates significant pollution, then there is no pint using new cars
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 460
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2017, 22:50
Stem: Find an answer which undermines the likelihood that "economy boost" and "less pollution" cannot be achieved using incentives.

Premises:

1. Automobile emissions are a significant source of air pollutants
2. cars over five years old typically generate significantly greater amounts of pollutants than newer cars
3. Torinia has recently built its first automobile manufacturing plant
4. Most cars in Torinia are over five years.

Using these premises it can be concluded that if incentives are given then, old cars will be replaced, reducing pollution and since new cars are bought, the business of the manufacturing unbit will prosper and economy gets a boost.

So something has to be found out that will not lead to pollution reduction and economy boost. However, one thing should be remembered that economy factor is dependent on the buying of new cars which will take place only if the old cars are scrapped due to reason of pollution. Incentive will help buying of new cars which will reduce pollution and hence trigger the economy.

PoE:

(A) Without the implementation of the planned incentives, most Torinians who own an old car would be unlikely to buy a new car.

Out of Question. You have to find where the two benefits wont be achieved when incentives are used.

(B) Torinia's automobile plant manufactures car models that typically generate smaller amounts of air pollutants than most similarly sized car models manufactured elsewhere.

Thats good. It shall be a factor which shall reduce pollution and if incentives are there, people will buy and would boost the economy. But we are looking for a factor which shall undermine the likelihood that the two things can be achieved. This strengthens and not weakens the success of incentivizing.

(C) The new cars produced in Torinia are not likely to be exported to other countries.

How does it affect the success of incentivizing. If nothing better, it strengthens as most cars will be sold in Torinia after incentives.

(D) The largest source of atmospheric pollutants in Torinia is not automobile emissions, but emissions from power plants.

Let it be the largest. There is no comparison here. We want to reduce air pollution and elimination is not practically possible. This is out of scope as it does not emphasize what happens if incentives are given. However, premise say that it is significant contributor, largest or not does not matter.

(E) The manufacture and the scrapping of cars each generate significant amounts of air pollutants.

If this happens, the aim of lessening the air pollution wont be satisfied as significant amount of air pollution is caused in both old cars as well as manufacturing of new cars and scrapping of old cars. The argument states as premise that
"cars over five years old typically generate significantly greater amounts of pollutants than newer cars". But if the procedure in this transition leads to same amount of pollution, why will people even think of changing their cars even if there are incentives. They are not going to receive the cars for free. These are just incentives. Since government expects that people can help in reducing pollution, they provide incentives. And if new cars are not purchased then there is no point boost in economy.

Both the aims should be achieved, but here one aim depends on other and hence the primary aim is reducing air pollution as supplemented by the premise. This is the most suitable option.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Re: CR: air pollutants   [#permalink] 26 Apr 2017, 22:50

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an 1 01 May 2017, 11:18
1 Advanced CR: In polluted environments, dolphins gradually accumulate 2 03 Jul 2015, 14:09
3 In polluted environments, dolphins gradually accumulated 9 20 Oct 2016, 18:42
11 Nitrogen dioxide is a pollutant emitted by automobiles. 17 12 Jun 2017, 09:32
1 In polluted environments, dolphins gradually accumulated 16 26 Aug 2016, 11:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by