GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 01 Jun 2020, 06:22

### 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

# If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2017
Posts: 288
If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2017, 05:56
1
13
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:53) correct 34% (02:05) wrong based on 474 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality and visibility over the city will begin to suffer, rainwater may be polluted, and the city will contribute to the global problem of greenhouse emissions. Taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit; this charge will therefore protect the city's air.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build.

B. The tax will not signiﬁcantly affect the commercial health of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit.

C. The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly.

D. The quality of the air is an important issue for most of the city's residents.

E. Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission.

Source: GMAT Free
Intern
Status: GMAT tutor
Joined: 20 Apr 2017
Posts: 20
GMAT 1: 770 Q49 V47
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2017, 10:18
vikasp99 wrote:
If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality and visibility over the city will begin to suffer, rainwater may be polluted, and the city will contribute to the global problem of greenhouse emissions. Taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit; this charge will therefore protect the city's air.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build.

B. The tax will not signiﬁcantly affect the commercial health of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit.

C. The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly.

D. The quality of the air is an important issue for most of the city's residents.

E. Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission.

Once we read the question, we realize that this is an assumption question. Accordingly, there must be a conclusion. What is that conclusion? In all likelihood it is the sentence "this charge will therefore protect the city's air." The word "therefore" often introduces the conclusion.

Now we can employ the why? test. Why will this charge protect the city's air? Because "taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit."

However, you will notice that the conclusion contains the modal verb will. Thus, it reads more as a prediction than a statement of fact. What reasons do we have for believing that this prediction is true? Employing the why? test again while looking at the answer choices shows that answer choice (C), if true, will support this prediction.

Not convinced? You can always employ the negation test. If answer choice (C) is the best answer it will, when negated, destroy the argument.

The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly. This negated statement, if true, casts serious doubt on the prediction above. If businesses can (and will) dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly, then it is most unlikely that they will reduce the amount of pollution emitted. Accordingly, the conclusion "this charge will protect the city's air" is in doubt.

This question reminds me very much of the following official question:

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.
_________________
Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622
Intern
Joined: 01 Aug 2017
Posts: 3
Location: India
Schools: HBS '20, Booth '20
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 4
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2017, 06:47
The argument made is that the tax will make the businesses reduce the emissions. The tax is based on the amount of emission. If the amount of emission can not be measured accurately (If the business can emit covertly), then the overall decision goes for a toss. Hence the correct option is C.
Intern
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 47
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2017, 12:38
1
If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality and visibility over the city will begin to suffer, rainwater may be polluted, and the city will contribute to the global problem of greenhouse emissions. Taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit;

Conclusion : this charge will therefore protect the city's air.

Pre-thinking: In the premise it is mentioned that the commercial establishment will reduce the amount of pollution they emit and thus the overall pollution will reduce. Now the assumption behind this could be - 1. Commercial establishment causes significantly high amount of pollution and their reduction will be enough to "protect the city's air".
2. Also, there will be no other alternate way in which the pollution can be increased or caused.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build. [How will they reduce is not the assumption, we are interested in knowing, what makes the author sure that there will definitely be a decrease!]

B. The tax will not signiﬁcantly affect the commercial health of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit.[the commercial health is not in question here - Out of Scope]

C. The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly.[Now think, if they covertly dispose off their gases, will the pollution decrease? Nah! it would not! Hence, this is an assumption by the author that the companies will not use any other means to dispose of the gases]

D. The quality of the air is an important issue for most of the city's residents. [We already know that from the presmises - so this is irrelevant]

E. Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission.[Out of Scope - We are not interest in knowing how can the air be cleaned]

_________________
Work Hard! Have Fun! Create History!
Retired Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1295
Location: Viet Nam
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2017, 21:02
This question has the same logic as OG question:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/if-the-count ... 83787.html
_________________
Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2018
Posts: 68
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V27
GRE 1: Q160 V150
GPA: 2.7
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 02:44
Tax will be to reduce the emission? how C is correct?

C will not reduce the emission, E seems better
examPAL Representative
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 1153
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2018, 03:00
prags1989 wrote:
Tax will be to reduce the emission? how C is correct?

C will not reduce the emission, E seems better

Hey prags1989
E is possible, but it is not an assumption the argument makes ; an assumption is something that needs be true in order to justify the conclusion. This is not the case for E, which is a nice bonus but definitely not necessary.
C, on the other hand, is something which the argument assumes: if we expect businesses to pollute less when they are being taxed, what we are actually expecting is that they will report their lower pollution to the government, and thus get a tax break. expecting them to reduce pollution covertly (secretly) not only makes no sense, but it contradicts the argument being made, which is that taxes are what will do the trick.
_________________
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 64155
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2019, 23:51
vikasp99 wrote:
If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality and visibility over the city will begin to suffer, rainwater may be polluted, and the city will contribute to the global problem of greenhouse emissions. Taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit; this charge will therefore protect the city's air.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build.

B. The tax will not signiﬁcantly affect the commercial health of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit.

C. The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly.

D. The quality of the air is an important issue for most of the city's residents.

E. Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission.

Source: GMAT Free

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Reading the question: the prompt concerns a plan, and we need to find an assumption in the plan. Plans tend to have lots of assumptions, but they can be difficult to think of. We tax polluters, so they pollute less--no assumption jumps out. Without a specific prediction, therefore, we can apply a basic filter to each answer choice: does it have any relevance to whether the plan will work?

Applying the filter: We test the choices for relevance to the plan. In choice (A), reducing pollution is part of our conclusion, but the "number of products" need not be part of it. Choice (B) is not critical to the argument; it doesn't say or claim or require that businesses will like the tax or even survive it. Choice (C) looks relevant. Choice (D) is irrelevant to whether the tax will work. And choice (E) is not required for the plan to work, as we can see by a negation test: say there isn't a way to purify gasses at the point of emission. They could still pollute less, by producing less, or by capturing the air and shipping it into space in sealed containers, or whatever. So choice (E) is out.

Logical proof: We're left with (C), so we apply the negation test. Negating it, we get, "The tax will induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly." That statement, if true, deals a severe blow to the argument. The plan won't achieve its aim if polluters continue to pollute covertly. Choice (C) is indeed critical.

_________________
Re: If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an   [#permalink] 19 Aug 2019, 23:51