Higher rates of respiratory problems in Clark have been linked to the

E.

We are trying to find why X (the rate of contamination) is not going to go down while its correlated variable, Y (the total number of airborne pollutants), is decreasing.

For D, we get that "Not all of X is caused by Y

This has no bearing on why X would not go down, however. Even if only .001% of X (respiratory problems) are caused by Y (air pollution), with this logic, a decrease in Y would still cause a very very tiny decrease in X. Therefore, D does not provide a solution.


E. Is the best because even though the emissions PER PLANT (Y) is going down, the number of plants, (a new variable Z), is going up.

We are trying to explain why, how when X = Y, in two years (1/2)X will still = Y, and the answer is if we multiply X by two (AKA twice as many plants).

Another acceptable answer would be if the population doubled, since twice as many people exposed to half as much pollutants would equal the same rate of contamination.

Hope that makes sense

I feel that the option choice E needs to be modified a little bit, only than it can be the correct answer..It says two new manufacturing plants are about to go in production...Not all manufacturing plants cause respiratory problems...Its very generic...The option must have word "Cosmetic" or sthn that makes it plausible to belev that the manufacturn plant going into producn will cause respiratory problems.

At the same time i agree that D cannot be true, because we are concerned with decrease in the rate nt the eradication...a decrease can be .001% or 99%

Consider Kudos If my post helps!!!

Archit

I think you're confusing between D and E. I won't talk about E, because E is clearly correct.
Just want to discuss why D is wrong.

As far as I understand, your logic for D is: not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants ==> the decrease amount of airborne pollutant will not affect the rates of respiratory problems ==> the rate of respiratory will not be reduced.

But it's wrong. "not all" means airborne pollutants still cause respiratory problems ==> there is a correlation between airborne pollutants and rates of respiratory problems. ==> if the amount of pollutant decreases, the rates must decrease. Hence, D is wrong.

Hope it helps you.

Linking back to the original source for this question: https://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/2605

In terms of frameworks, here's how we think about it at GMAT PILL:

A leads to B

[Lauriel plant emissions] leads to [respiratory problems]

The passages suggests that emissions will go down.

So given that (A --> B), if we reduce/remove A - then one might think that B disappears.

If we reduce emissions, one might think that respiratory problems will disappear.

But the author says that will UNLIKELY happen because.... why?

Because something else OTHER than A (let's call it C) will lead to B.

If we have something else that leads to respiratory problems, then removing Lauriel emissions will not necessarily solve the respiratory problem.

That's exactly what (E) says.

(E) says that 2 NEW plants will come on - and that will lead to respiratory problems.

So even if we remove the original Lauriel emissions, those 2 new plants will still lead to respiratory problems.

So this is an example of the Linked Chains Frameworks between A, B, and C combined with Expectations vs Actuality.

A leads to B.

Negate it and you might expect that:

(Without A) --> there will be no B.

But actually, if something else C leads to B, then removing A will not necessarily lead to no B.

Because C will still lead to B.

Does that make sense?

You can learn more about Linked Chains in the Critical Reasoning Pill Frameworks.

Request you to not to post answers/queries/views in question window. This prevents us to analyze the question. The whole purpose of GMAT Club forums is wasted doing so. You have response windows to do all such things.

Unrealistic explanation. Can't be possible. Option D has to be modified to become incorrect.

THE ANSWER IS E

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Higher rates of respiratory problems in Clark have been linked to the airborne pollutants being released from the Lauriel cosmetic manufacturing plant. In response to these new findings, the city imposed regulations on the Lauriel plant, requiring it to reduce emissions by half in two years’ time. While Lauriel has no problem meeting these new emission levels, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory problems two years from now will be reduced since ______.

(A)the number of facilities capable of treating respiratory ailments is not likely to increase
Doesn't matter. Since no new patient will be added, eventually existing patient will get their chance to get treated. It may take time but it will happen

(
B)reducing emissions even further than suggested through regulation would necessitate decreasing production at Lauriel
Irrelevant. We are not concerned about production. The question is about rate of respiratory problem. Anyway even further decrease in production will improve the condition even more


(C)it is difficult to make accurate, long-term predictions about emissions
Irrelevant. But we are not concerned about long term. We are concerned about laurel reduced production and its effect. Also this is a fact driven question and No indication about prediction are mentioned in the passage.


(D)not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants
But the one that are cause by Airborne pollutants of Lareal will definitely decrease.


(E)two new manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Clark
Correct:- Assume earlier plant produce 50 ton of pollutants.After regulation it is producing 20 ton.
Now two more plant will start. They both will produce 20 + 20 ton of pollutants more
Total pollutants from 2 new and one old plant will be 20+20+20=60 ton of pollutants.

So still there is 10 ton more pollutants than earlier. More polllutants more respiratory problem

THE ANSWER IS E

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Higher rates of respiratory problems in Clark have been linked to the airborne pollutants being released from the Lauriel cosmetic manufacturing plant. In response to these new findings, the city imposed regulations on the Lauriel plant, requiring it to reduce emissions by half in two years’ time. While Lauriel has no problem meeting these new emission levels, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory problems two years from now will be reduced since ______.

(A)the number of facilities capable of treating respiratory ailments is not likely to increase
Doesn't matter. Since no new patient will be added, eventually existing patient will get their chance to get treated. It may take time but it will happen

(B) Reducing emissions even further than suggested through regulation would necessitate decreasing production at Lauriel
Irrelevant. We are not concerned about production. The question is about rate of respiratory problem. Anyway even further decrease in production will improve the condition even more


(C) It is difficult to make accurate, long-term predictions about emissions
Irrelevant. But we are not concerned about long term. We are concerned about laurel reduced production and its effect. Also this is a fact driven question and No indication about prediction are mentioned in the passage.


(D) Not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants
But the one that are cause by Airborne pollutants of Lareal will definitely decrease.


(E) Two new manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Clark
Correct:- Assume earlier plant produce 50 ton of pollutants.After regulation it is producing 20 ton.
Now two more plant will start. They both will produce 20 + 20 ton of pollutants more
Total pollutants from 2 new and one old plant will be 20+20+20=60 ton of pollutants.

So still there is 10 ton more pollutants than earlier. More polllutants more respiratory problem

Hello pqhai,

My issue with E as the right answer is the following:

Aren't we assuming that the two new mfg plants are cosmetic mfg plants? Only then can we safely say that the rate of respiratory problems won't decline because a link has been established in the argument between higher rates of respiratory problems and air borne pollutants released from the COSMETIC mfg plant. From option E how can we infer that the two new mfg plants are cosmetic plants? And since not all mfg plants have been linked to respiratory problems. We can't say that these new plants would contribute to an increase in respiratory problems.

We need to find an answers which will basically convey that imposed regulations will not help in reducing rate of respiratory problems.
A. We don't care about it.
B. We are not going further than mentioned.
C. Will toss up the argument.
D. May be true but I am concerned about this only one for now.
E. Completely makes sense. If you are opening one plant but there are 10 whom the government has already approved and are going into production then what is the point.