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

Why E... There is no guarantee that these two new cosmetic manufacturing plants will produce pollution... They might use some different process...
IMO D..

Though E is OA, I don't get why D is not correct. Anyone please help with the explanation. Thanks!

About D, yes, It is a good choice but E is Better.

If you go with D, you are trying to question the impact of the airborne pollutants being released from the Lauriel cosmetic manufacturing plant.
You are trying to deny the first sentence as it clearly says that airborne pollutants are linked with respiratory problems.

Yes, that's a good point.

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.

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.

@GMATPill

Can we not consider
Lauriel cosmetic --> airborne pollutants -->Higher rates of respiratory problems

A --> B --> C

But looking at option D; [not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants]

C can be caused by D.
D --> C

Please explain. (Options are too close. )

Can you not even see for yourself that something else that leads to b is perfectly addressed in option D?
I dont get the point why you are developing such amibigous questions at the CR part.

Most of the CR questions you develop are just slightly changed questions from the OG.
While you are doing decent things at other domains, your CR part is just awful.

You are not doing anyone a favour with posting these types of CR questions, as CR questions at test day will be very subtle, and answer choices above all will be clearly structured.

For me its D. There is no certainty that new plants will also add up the pollution.
But having an alternate reason for existing pollution levels would mean shutting down plant may not have intended outcome.

E does not explicitly state that the two new cosmetic manufacturing plants lead to respiratory problems by releasing airborne pollutants, not does the passage state so. According to the passage,

"Higher rates of respiratory problems in Clark have been linked to the airborne pollutants being released from the Lauriel cosmetic manufacturing plant"

The respiratory problems are linked to pollutants released fro Lauriel cosmetic manufacturing plant only. Are we not generalizing this statement to all cosmetic manufacturing plants to arrive at our answer? It could be true that it is only Lauriel cosmetic manufacturing plant releases airborne pollutants and all other plants already follow strict norms and are likely to incorporate the same in their two new plants as well.

Similarly, even D appears debatable.

It says "not all" respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants. Even if this were true, not all just means, not 100%. It could be anything from 0% to 99.9%. Let's say 60%. If 60% of respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants which are in turn released from the Lauriel cosmetic manufacturing plant, it is no more an explanation why the rate of respiratory problems will not reduce over the next two years if the emissions are reduced.

GMATNinja, I don't want to bother you for this old question but if you can quickly help pick between D and E, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!