ak2121 wrote:
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake's waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake's bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline's construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake's fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THIS ONE PLS?
Hi,
Let’s look at the argument
Conclusion- Therefore, provided this technology that prevents leaks is effective, those fears are groundless.
What are the fears?that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again (leading to pollution).
(A) Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
The conclusion is related to the construction of the pipeline. New industrial development is out of scope.
Eliminate.
(B) There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
The conclusion takes into account that this technology will be effective. So the assumption cannot restate the same thing.
Eliminate.
(C) The bottom of the lake does not contain toxic remnants of earlier pollution that will be stirred into water by pipeline construction.
Correct. If the construction of the pipeline leads to pollution, then having the technology to prevent leaks is still not going to help. This means that the fears are not ungrounded. Negation of C breaks the argument.
(D) Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
Irrelevant.
Eliminate.
(E) The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
Totally irrelevant. The conclusion is that the fears are ungrounded- that the construction of the pipeline will not revive pollution.
Eliminate.
Hope this helps!
VP
_________________
Crackverbal Prep Team
www.crackverbal.com