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

It is currently 17 Jul 2018, 10:42

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

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

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

Hide Tags

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8124
Location: Pune, India
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2013, 23:00
3
akshaygaur wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
priyankur_saha@ml.com 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 lak 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 industria 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.

Spoiler: :: My Take
My pick is B. I do not have OA. Please post OA if you have.


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.


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. :)


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.
_________________

Karishma
Private Tutor for GMAT
Contact: bansal.karishma@gmail.com

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.1
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2013, 06:35
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.[/quote]

Thanks a ton. I finally got it!! Excellent explanation by you :)
_________________

KUDOS if you find it good!!

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2015, 23:50
1
mohand wrote:
why not "A" :|


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 :-D :-D
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 55
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.58
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2015, 01:11
1
1
mohand wrote:
why not "A" :|

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"
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 125
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2016, 04:01
2
mestrec wrote:
And why not B? It looks good for me...


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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 212
Premium Member
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2016, 06:30
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
priyankur_saha@ml.com 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 lak 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 industria 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.

Spoiler: :: My Take
My pick is B. I do not have OA. Please post OA if you have.


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.



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
Expert Post
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8124
Location: Pune, India
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2016, 21:31
PathFinder007 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
priyankur_saha@ml.com 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 lak 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 industria 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.

Spoiler: :: My Take
My pick is B. I do not have OA. Please post OA if you have.


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.



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


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: http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/11 ... onclusion/
_________________

Karishma
Private Tutor for GMAT
Contact: bansal.karishma@gmail.com

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 458
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2017, 08:17
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lak 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 industria development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
There is no reference of an industrial construction or development in the argument. And the impact of such is also not discussed.

B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
Correct Answer for the assumption question because this links the premise to the conclusion.Also if we do the negation test then the argument will fall apart.

C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
Well the technology will be effective but the impacts of the installation of the technology are to be considered .Not the main assumption

D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
The pollution cause harm to both floura and fauna, the point does not align with the argument.

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.
The type of species is out of scope.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 147
GPA: 3.72
Reviews Badge
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2017, 07:35
This question demonstrated HND SD bias for me - as I thought along the lines of option D, and almost went "cognitively" blind after reading choice D; while a careful consideration has shown me that correct option would be choice C.
_________________

A lot needs to be learned from all of you.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 85
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2017, 23:28
A - Outside scope of argument. Only concerned with whether oil pipeline will cause pollution
B - This cannot be the assumption since it's explicitly stated in the argument that provided the technology is effective....Assumptions are unstated
C - Correct. Negate this and the whole argument falls apart
D. Irrelevant. Outside scope.
E. Irrelevant. Outside scope.
_________________

Give me kudos and see what happens to your GMAT score :-)

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Posts: 90
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Internet and New Media)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2017, 02:57
Can anybody please explain why A and B have been eliminated ??
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 486
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2018, 06:00
Clean C

B is nice trap answer set, as the argument clearly says, provided technology is efficient, fears are groundless -> so the argument already accepts the fact if provided technology is inefficient, fears may be valid.
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen   [#permalink] 15 Apr 2018, 06:00

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


cron

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®.