Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen

Question

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 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) There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.

(C) The bottom of the lake does not contain toxic remnants of earlier pollution that will be stirred into water by pipeline construction.

(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.

Source  :  GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Logically you might think that fear will be "Lake will get polluted and fish population will decline" but the argument clearly mentions the fear as "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."

So the fear is that the oil pipeline will cause pollution. This is an important point in CR. You have to focus on exactly what the argument is saying. You cannot generalize nor can you use outside information. Think of it as a debate. Say some people are in favor of constructing a new pipeline and some are against. So both sides are putting their points forward. Now if someone says that there could some other new development which causes pollution, that is out of scope of this argument, right? We are only considering whether this pipeline will cause pollution.

sowragu · Answer

Option B already stated in the argument. hence cannot be assumption.

However, a technology for
preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.

B.There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

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

Minheequang · Answer

Yeah, the same like yours, IMO  B

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 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 -->  the argument just mentions about the planned construction of a pipeline, not about any other industrial development. The assumption will only prove that the argument has ground to develop, and is too narrow to provide ground for irrelevant fact to develop too 
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction -->  Using the negating technique, if there is possibility that other threat can pose pollution to the lake, the fact that new techonology will prevent leak can't help completedly demolish the pollution to the lake. Therefore, the fears are still considerable. hence, Pick up this choice 
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa --> Assuming that this is true, but even when oil leaks to the lake, no facts state that oil-leaking is polluted to the lake. So, this is uncertainty 
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause -->  Negating this choice:  leak of oil from the pipeline can cause more than one damage to the lake . So what ??? it does not weaken the argument that the techonology is inffective and that the fears is not groundless. So eliminate this 
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 --> 
 out of scope

bigfernhead · Answer

It's funny how I get this question correct in the forum, but then get it incorrect while taking the practice Test this weekend.

This is a GMATPrep question. OA is C. The conclusion is actually "those fears are groundless", not "this technology is effective". The latter is the premise. If you mistakenly identified that as the conclusion, then you would have chosen B incorrectly. cr - lake.JPG

x2suresh · Answer

bigfernheard,

You are consistenent in choosing the Answers, but unfortunately both are incorrect.

Option C in the original question (Priyankumar posted) and Optiion B ( in GMAT PREP posted by you) are same. Both are wrong.

here B is the correct answer.

Option C --> in GMATPRE is totall differrent, and agree with that answer.

Vips0000 · Answer

argument states that fish will be safe since the leak would be prevented with some technology. However it is assumed that leak is the only threat in construction of pipeline. option C states same assumption.

ans C it is.

Archit143 · Answer

I also vote for C

was stuck between A and C, but C wins over A as any other construction is out of scope..... the argument is concerned with the pollution arising from the pipeline.

Also, we are not looking for a weakener.

Good question

Vips0000 · Answer

Sure. D states "Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause." But actually nowhere in the argument it is assumed so or mentioned so. leak of oil may pollute water and harm people, birds or animals drinking water from it (if at all).. but do we care? its irrelavant to the argument -which concerns fish population.

Hope it helps!

Archit143 · Answer

Conclusion: Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
Now ask question which fear?
Fear from pollution, that will arise from failure of the system, leading to the death of fish.

Remem the argument is not stating death of any organism from the leak of oil except Fish. Well may be it might cause the deah of other speices but is not discussed in the argument. Also if we assume the above fact its not going to validate the conclusion stated in the starting of the explanation.

Assumption is unstated necessary premise which the author takes for granted.

Hence I dont think that d plays any role in validating the conclusion.

Try negating it will have no effecct on the conclusion.
Why I am saying its out of scope because the argument is concerned about:-
1. Pollution from the leak of oil.
2. New safety system incorporated, will be helpful.
3. Population of Fish getting affected.

Hope that helps.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm: Why is (A) not correct?

What is the argument? 
The argument is this: Leaks will be prevented so the oil pipeline will not cause pollution.

The argument focuses on the possible pollution caused by the oil pipeline in future, not any other source. The argument also doesn't say that the Lake will not be polluted through some other source. It narrowly focuses only on the pipeline. Hence (A) is not an assumption. It is out of scope for our argument. The argument only says that oil pipeline will not cause pollution. It doesn't say nothing else will cause pollution.

IVYCRACKERS.COM · Answer

Hi Karishma, Thanks for your prompt reply

. I agree that argument talks about"leaks". But the conclusion states that those fears would not hold true if the new technique is good. Now "fears" i suppose refers to the polluted lake and decline in fish population. If we negate (A), it will weaken this conclusion and hence could be a contender for correct answer. Again, I am not at all challenging (B) is correct. I just want to know how to tackle such questions on actual GMAT within a limited time.

debaratidg · Answer

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. We are not talking about other constructions. Yes, other constructions can potentially disturb/cause toxic elements to rise, but it doesn't in any way weaken or strengthen the provided conclusion about the proposed pipeline. Hence it is always better to stick to the options that weaken/strengthen the provided conclusion :-D

emeraldweapon · Answer

A talks about other constructions, which may result in  other  fears. The conclusion of the argument specifies the fear arising from pipeline only as indicated by the phrase "those fears"

PathFinder007 · Answer

Hi,

Can you please provide your comments for option C?

There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.

if we negate it doesn't it break the argument.

There is reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.

Thanks

KarishmaB · Answer

This is our conclusion: "provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless." We are expressing opinion on what happens provided the technology is effective - in case the technology is effective, not whether it is effective. So it is a conditional conclusion. "Is the technology actually effective", is not a part of the argument. It is out of scope for the argument. We are only arguing about what happens in case the technology is effective. Check out this concept here: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/11 ... onclusion/

arichinna · Answer

Conclusion: provided the technology is effective, the planned construction of pipeline will not revive pollution.

Option 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.
 This is close in arguing that the pollution will be renewed. But it doesn't point out that the planned construction will not revive pollution but some other development will.

Option B: There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
 The argument clearly mentions that only when the technology is effective, the pollution revival will not happen. Even when we negate the statement - there is reason to believe that the technology will be ineffective - it doesn't break the conclusion. Because, the conclusion clearly has a condition for the revival. If the condition is not true, there is no revival.

Option C: The bottom of the lake does not contain toxic remnants of earlier pollution that will be stirred into water by pipeline construction.
 This choice when negated clearly alludes that even though when the planned construction is effective, the mere process of construction will stir water to cause pollution. This answer choice is the assumption as it will break the conclusion if not true.

dcummins · Answer

The argument is that the construction of a pipeline across the lake's bottom will not revive pollution and cause the fish to decline.
This is based on the fact that a leakage prevention device is being installed with the pipeline.

The argument assumes..

A - Other industrial development is not relevant to the argument concerning the industrial development in question
B - i chose this answer incorrectly. It is incorrect because the construction itself is independent of the effectiveness of the leakage prevention device and the construction could still cause issues. Therefore B does not need to be true for the argument to be true.
C - is correct because it eliminates an alternate cause that could prevent the conclusion from happening. In this regard it Defends the argument.
D - D does not need to be assumed as we are only concerned with the preventative side of things, not what has happened after an incident occurs.
E - This is irrelevant to the effectiveness of the plan and the conclusion in general.

Basshead · Answer

- People are against constructing an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom because of potential leaks
- We’re told that new technology will prevent leaks from occurring.
- Conclusion: If effective, people don’t need to worry about leaks anymore.

A – This is not a necessary assumption. We’re discussing the impact of an oil pipeline, not other industrial development and its impact. Out of scope.

B – This is not a necessary assumption. We’re told that those fears are groundless IF the technology is effective. So this is already stated.

C  – CORRECT. If the bottom of the lake does contain toxic remnants, then those fears are certainly not groundless.

D – Not necessary. The leak can harm other things as well.

E – Irrelevant.

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen

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