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

It is currently 18 Oct 2018, 00:16

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

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 563
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 01 Oct 2017, 00:32
3
27
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

67% (01:51) correct 33% (01:59) wrong based on 1475 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Originally posted by priyankur_saha@ml.com on 04 May 2009, 00:03.
Last edited by hazelnut on 01 Oct 2017, 00:32, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 869
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2009, 09:57
3
2
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.



Attachment:
cr - lake.JPG
cr - lake.JPG [ 109.88 KiB | Viewed 23829 times ]
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 224
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2009, 00:24
2
1
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
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1687
Location: New York
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2009, 11:31
2
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.
_________________

Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Done with formalities.. and back..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Olin - Wash U - Class of 2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2012, 00:23
2
nelz007 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.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 the 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 Konfanow are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.


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.
_________________

Lets Kudos!!! ;-)
Black Friday Debrief

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 957
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2012, 01:14
1
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
Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Done with formalities.. and back..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Olin - Wash U - Class of 2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2012, 01:26
1
nelz007 wrote:
was stuck between C and D. could you explain D?

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!
_________________

Lets Kudos!!! ;-)
Black Friday Debrief

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 957
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2012, 01:32
1
nelz007 wrote:
was stuck between C and D. could you explain D?


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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
Location: Pune, India
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2013, 00:21
1
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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 33
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 14 Aug 2013, 07:31
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. :)
_________________

KUDOS if you find it good!!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
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
4
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
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

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
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 56
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"
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 119
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2016, 04:01
3
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: 200
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
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8386
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
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 29
Reviews Badge
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2018, 15:51
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen &nbs [#permalink] 19 Jul 2018, 15:51
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  


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®.