It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 00:34

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 633

Kudos [?]: 655 [3], given: 6

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2009, 23:03
3
KUDOS
16
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:19) correct 37% (01:25) wrong based on 855 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by hazelnut on 30 Sep 2017, 23:32, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question.

Kudos [?]: 655 [3], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 248

Kudos [?]: 207 [1], given: 1

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2009, 23:24
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 207 [1], given: 1

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 959

Kudos [?]: 313 [2], given: 5

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2009, 08:57
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 [ 109.88 KiB | Viewed 19168 times ]

Kudos [?]: 313 [2], given: 5

SVP
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1790

Kudos [?]: 1102 [2], given: 5

Location: New York
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2009, 10:31
2
KUDOS
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.
_________________

Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Kudos [?]: 1102 [2], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2011, 17:35
I go for B after careful reconsideration.

The conclusion should be:
Because the techology of preventing leaking is effective, there is no need to worry about any polution.

However, B provide another consideration may weaken the conclusion. The oil construction itself may cause pollution.

While C, at first glance looks good, but dont you think it kind of deny the premise of the passage. The passage believe the effectiveness of the technology.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2011, 17:38
crackHSW wrote:
Why is A opted out , how does one know that industrail development effects are not being taken into consideration here ??

A put industry development, which is not relevant.

The whole passage is talking about Oil construction, technology, pollution. We should find some OA mention something related.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2011, 16:40
Agree with b too! Since it already states that the security system works! Assuming that it will not work here is grasping too far! Why wouldn't it? B is a more plausible explanation for why pollution might accure!

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 241 [0], given: 20

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2012, 05:39
patrickwestoo wrote:
Agree with b too! Since it already states that the security system works! Assuming that it will not work here is grasping too far! Why wouldn't it? B is a more plausible explanation for why pollution might accure!

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Are you talking about the first argument posted or the GMATPrep question? If it is the latter one, the correct answer is C.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Kudos [?]: 241 [0], given: 20

Intern
Joined: 19 Jun 2011
Posts: 38

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 11

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2012, 13:50
B for me. I used the A.N.T technique and B fit the best. Spent 2:15 on this Q. I knew the answer was B at 1:10 but I reread question stem and answer choices

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2012, 21:33
I go for B
B is the best when compare with C, B is a more fundamental issue for the problem. When construction itself cause problem, whether leaking preventing technology is effective or not is no longer a main issue

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 158

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 29

WE 1: Information Technology(Retail)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2012, 02:23
IMO- B,

Premise- "an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline" and "a technology for preventing leaks is being installed".
Conclusion-"provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless."

Hence the Assumption in Option B-"Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction." is correct.

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 29

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 234

Kudos [?]: 416 [1], given: 63

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2012, 23:10
1
KUDOS
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Last edited by nelz007 on 13 Nov 2012, 00:08, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 416 [1], given: 63

Director
Status: Done with formalities.. and back..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 635

Kudos [?]: 672 [2], given: 23

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Olin - Wash U - Class of 2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2012, 23:23
2
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 672 [2], given: 23

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1074

Kudos [?]: 671 [1], given: 70

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

13 Nov 2012, 00:14
1
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 671 [1], given: 70

Director
Status: Done with formalities.. and back..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 635

Kudos [?]: 672 [1], given: 23

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Olin - Wash U - Class of 2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2012, 00:26
1
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 672 [1], given: 23

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1074

Kudos [?]: 671 [1], given: 70

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

13 Nov 2012, 00:32
1
KUDOS
nelz007 wrote:
was stuck between C and D. could you explain D?

Conclusion: Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
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.

Kudos [?]: 671 [1], given: 70

VP
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1387

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 916

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2012, 03:28
This one can be said to be a proposal passage

making the pipe will not makes the pollution.

prethink for proposal: no bad agent the the process to be happen, or something needed to bridge the gap

in this case, there is not bad agent.

go to answer choices, C look closest. use negation test. It is ok,

I DO NOT READ THE REMAINING CHOICES. (pls, comment on my not reading the reamaining choices. Is it dangerous? )
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 916

Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 20

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

13 Aug 2013, 06:38
Minheequang wrote:
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

But even if we negate A we will come to the same conclusion as (B). I totally agree that (B) is correct but can someone explain me why (A) is incorrect?
_________________

KUDOS if you find it good!!

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 20

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7793

Kudos [?]: 18125 [1], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2013, 23:21
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.

[Reveal] 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
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18125 [1], given: 236

Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 20

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

14 Aug 2013, 06:31
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.

[Reveal] 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!!

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 20

Re: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recen   [#permalink] 14 Aug 2013, 06:31

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 32 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by