Environmentalist: Several thousand chemicals are found in our nation's

Question

Environmentalist: Several thousand chemicals are found in our nation's drinking water, and the health effects of most of them are not completely known. Yet, in the past fifteen years, the government has added only one new chemical to the two dozen or so that it regulates in drinking water. Thus, the government's regulation of chemicals in drinking water is not sufficient to protect public health.

Finding the answer to which of the following questions is most likely to be the most helpful in evaluating the environmentalist's argument?

A.  How many of the chemicals the government currently regulates in drinking water have ever posed a risk to public health when found at high concentrations?

B.  By what means other than regulating chemicals in drinking water does the government work to protect public health?

C.  How many chemicals have been present in significant concentrations in the nation's drinking water for more than fifteen years while not being subject to government regulation?

D.  Why are health effects of most chemicals found in the nation's drinking water not completely known?

E.  Are there two or more chemicals that, at the concentrations present significantly often in the nation's drinking water over the last 15 years, can damage human health?

SwethaReddyL · Answer

Is the answer 'C'?
What type of question is this? Evaluating or strenghtening?

nagasatish · Answer

What is the answer? I think it is E, but C is also a strong one.

Matram6 · Answer

I selected C as it seems the most appropriate to determine whether the conclusion  "Thus, the government's regulation of chemicals in drinking water is not sufficient to protect public health."

A- Seems irrelevant
B- irrelevant
D- irrelevant
E- Second contender, as I write this I would change my answer to this. It would answer the question of the number of harmful chemicals and allow us to evaluate the conclusion.

samarpan.g28 · Answer

Although I chose E, I feel, if E yields a positive answer then the environmentalist's argument will be weakened by supporting that regulation is not insufficient.
Option C says that there are significant number of chemicals present for 15 years without govt regulations which affects public health. C seems a better choice.

Posted from my mobile device

tgsankar10 · Answer

Environmentalists' Argument:   Govt added only one new chemical to its regulation. They argue that Govt regulation is not sufficient for public health.

Since the health effects of most of the chemicals present in drinking water are not completely known, this information will might be useful for evaluating the argument.

A.   How many of the chemicals the government currently regulates in drinking water have ever posed a risk to public health when found at high concentrations?

No.   This will give answer to the effects of chemicals only which the Government regulates. It leaves several thousand of other chemicals present in drinking water

B.   By what means other than regulating chemicals in drinking water does the government work to protect public health?

No.   The concern is about regulation of chemicals in drinking water. Other ways of protecting public health is irrelevant to this argument.

C.   How many chemicals have been present in significant concentrations in the nation's drinking water for more than fifteen years while not being subject to government regulation?

No.   This may give the number of chemicals which are not in Govt regulation. But their effects in public health is still will be unclear.

D.   Why are health effects of most chemicals found in the nation's drinking water not completely known?

No.   There may be various reasons for this. But none of them will explain their effects on public health

E.   Are there two or more chemicals that, at the concentrations present significantly often in the nation's drinking water over the last 15 years, can damage human health?

Yes.   Answer to this question will reveal both the chemicals which are under Govt regulation & which are not and their effects on human health. From this it can be evaluated whether Govt's regulation of chemicals in drinking water is not sufficient to protect public health or not.

Answer is E

BettyD · Answer

The following is the reasoning provided by my teacher for choosing option E. I'm not sure which option to select, and I couldn't find the official answer online. I need a professional to confirm it.

Reasoning provided by my teacher for choosing option E:  Textual logic chain:

Premise:  Thousands of chemicals have been found in our nation's drinking water. It is unclear if most of these chemicals affect health. Over the past 15 years, the government has added only a few new chemicals to the list of 20 it regulates in drinking water. 
  Conclusion :  The government's regulation of chemicals in drinking water is insufficient to protect public health.
   
  Option Analysis:

(A)  How many of the chemicals the government currently regulates in drinking water have ever posed a risk to public health when found at high concentrations?
 This question does not affect the textual logic chain, regardless of how many chemicals pose a risk to public health at high concentrations.

(B)  By what means other than regulating chemicals in drinking water does the government work to protect public health?
 The text states that the government's regulation of chemicals in drinking water is insufficient to protect public health. This option talks about other means of protecting public health, which is irrelevant to the argument.

(C)  How many chemicals have been present in significant concentrations in the nation's drinking water for more than fifteen years while not being subject to government regulation?
 This option is irrelevant to the argument.

(D)  Why are the health effects of most chemicals found in the nation's drinking water not completely known?
 Irrelevant.

(E)  Are there two or more chemicals that, at the concentrations present significantly often in the nation's drinking water over the last fifteen years, can damage human health?
  Correct Answer.  If the answer is yes, then many substances in the water are harmful, and since the government has only added one substance to the list in the past fifteen years, it suggests that the government's regulation of chemicals in drinking water is not adequate to protect public health, thus strengthening the textual logic chain. If the answer is no, then although there are many substances in the water, at most only one is harmful, and since that one is already regulated by the government, the regulation is sufficient to protect public health, thus weakening the textual logic chain.

BettyD · Answer

The following is the reasoning provided by my teacher for choosing option E. I'm not sure which option to select, and I couldn't find the official answer online. I need a professional to confirm it. Thanks!

Environmentalist: Several thousand chemicals are found in our nation's

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

Environmentalist: Several thousand chemicals are found in our nation's

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