It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 10:52

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

In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone

Author Message
VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1482

Kudos [?]: 1457 [1], given: 2

Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 May 2010, 14:05
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (01:39) correct 50% (01:36) wrong based on 44 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone layer over the Antarctic might be decreasing and thereby allowing so much harmful ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth that polar marine life would be damaged. Some government officials dismissed these concerns, since statistics indicated that global atmospheric ozone levels remained constant.

The relevance of the evidence cited by the government officials in support of their position would be most seriously undermined if it were true that

(A) most species of plant and animal life flourish in warm climates rather than in the polar regions
(B) decreases in the amount of atmospheric Ozone over the Antarctic ice cap tend to be seasonal rather than constant
(C) decreases in the amount of atmospheric ozone were of little concern before l980
(D) quantities of atmospheric ozone shifted away from the polar caps, correspondingly increasing ozone levels in other regions
(E) even where the amount of atmospheric ozone is normal, some ultraviolet light reaches the Earth’s surface

Kudos [?]: 1457 [1], given: 2

Current Student
Affiliations: ?
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
Posts: 191

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 6

Location: Africa/Europe
Schools: Kellogg; Ross (\$\$); Tuck

Show Tags

24 May 2010, 15:27
I would go with D
It's the only one tthat try to say that the ozone level is not constant as the statistics seemed to indicate.

What's OA?

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 320

Kudos [?]: 875 [1], given: 28

Show Tags

25 May 2010, 11:11
1
KUDOS
I would also go with D.

In B the ozone layer decrease is seasonal which doesn't undermine the official's claim. If we look at it closely, this doesn't state that ozone layer has decrease on Antarctica, rather it says that the decrease is seasonal.

In D, however, we are stating a problem which is the reason why the overall ozone concentration levels have been steady and decreased on Antarctica.
_________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

Kudos [?]: 875 [1], given: 28

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 28

Schools: DukeTuck,Kelogg,Darden

Show Tags

25 May 2010, 16:17
In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone layer over the Antarctic might be decreasing and thereby allowing so much harmful ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth that polar marine life would be damaged. Some government officials dismissed these concerns, since statistics indicated that global atmospheric ozone levels remained constant.

The relevance of the evidence cited by the government officials in support of their position would be most seriously undermined if it were true that

(A) most species of plant and animal life flourish in warm climates rather than in the polar regions
(B) decreases in the amount of atmospheric Ozone over the Antarctic ice cap tend to be seasonal rather than constant
(C) decreases in the amount of atmospheric ozone were of little concern before l980
(D) quantities of atmospheric ozone shifted away from the polar caps, correspondingly increasing ozone levels in other regions
(E) even where the amount of atmospheric ozone is normal, some ultraviolet light reaches the Earth’s surface

Its "D"

The author is concerned over the decrease in the ozone layer over Antarctica, but the officials undermine his claim by sighting to the stat that global ozone layer was constant.

D explains both, supports the author by saying ozone layer shifts and in turn explaining y the officials claim though right is wrong.
_________________

Run towards the things that make you uncomfortable daily. The greatest risk is not taking risks
http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-690-to-730-q50-v38-97356.html

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 28

Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Posts: 9

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

Show Tags

25 May 2010, 19:23
IMO D too.

It can't be B coz decrease in ozone is seasonal and not constant has no bearing on the issue at hand. Dunno why I even considered B in the first place. Duh!

Last edited by GillAS777 on 27 May 2010, 20:33, edited 1 time in total.

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

Manager
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 65

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 4

Show Tags

25 May 2010, 21:06
GillAS777 wrote:
IMO B

Although both B & D negate constant ozone stats, option B clearly states ozone is not constant. Option D only states that quantities of ozone shift. This quantity may even be negligible. Hence, I feel option B MOST seriously undermines.

Noboru please post OA for your posts. You have us all waiting. Cheers!!

I think its D because D clearly reasons out for both :
1. statistics indicated that global atmospheric ozone levels remained constant.
2. protective ozone layer over the Antarctic might be decreasing

Let me know if my reasoning is Ok

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 65

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)

Show Tags

26 May 2010, 04:15
IT's E.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 65

Manager
Joined: 30 Apr 2010
Posts: 76

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

26 May 2010, 04:34
IMO D

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 445

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 157

Show Tags

26 May 2010, 05:18
noboru wrote:
In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone layer over the Antarctic might be decreasing and thereby allowing so much harmful ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth that polar marine life would be damaged. Some government officials dismissed these concerns, since statistics indicated that global atmospheric ozone levels remained constant.

The relevance of the evidence cited by the government officials in support of their position would be most seriously undermined if it were true that

(A) most species of plant and animal life flourish in warm climates rather than in the polar regions
(B) decreases in the amount of atmospheric Ozone over the Antarctic ice cap tend to be seasonal rather than constant
(C) decreases in the amount of atmospheric ozone were of little concern before l980
(D) quantities of atmospheric ozone shifted away from the polar caps, correspondingly increasing ozone levels in other regions
(E) even where the amount of atmospheric ozone is normal, some ultraviolet light reaches the Earth’s surface

For me is between B and D

Ans is D

Because If the quantity of ozone shifted from one place and increased at another place then the average would be constant.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 157

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1474

Kudos [?]: 762 [0], given: 6

Show Tags

27 May 2010, 12:53
it is definitely between B and D....and my pick is (D)

Kudos [?]: 762 [0], given: 6

Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 390

Kudos [?]: 199 [0], given: 76

Show Tags

28 May 2010, 12:05
noboru wrote:
In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone layer over the Antarctic might be decreasing and thereby allowing so much harmful ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth that polar marine life would be damaged. Some government officials dismissed these concerns, since statistics indicated that global atmospheric ozone levels remained constant.

The relevance of the evidence cited by the government officials in support of their position would be most seriously undermined if it were true that

(A) most species of plant and animal life flourish in warm climates rather than in the polar regions
(B) decreases in the amount of atmospheric Ozone over the Antarctic ice cap tend to be seasonal rather than constant
(C) decreases in the amount of atmospheric ozone were of little concern before l980
(D) quantities of atmospheric ozone shifted away from the polar caps, correspondingly increasing ozone levels in other regions
(E) even where the amount of atmospheric ozone is normal, some ultraviolet light reaches the Earth’s surface

For me is between B and D

For me also is between B and D. However, I think that D is stronger than B.
B apparently contradicts the evidence of the officials, but it doesn't, since they are talking about different places: global vs Antarctic. So it doesn't undermine the evidence of the global constant level of ozone. Also, the decrease tend to be seasonal, so still the officials could say that the negative impact is not permanent. It's not in the passage, but anyways.
D doesn't say anything about season, it could be permanent. It doesn't contradict the evidence of the officials since it agrees that increasing the levels of other regions, then the global level could be constant. But it points that quantities of ozone over the polar caps shifted away to other regions, then not only the evidence is undermined, but the position of the government officials as well.

D is better than B.

Kudos [?]: 199 [0], given: 76

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 304

Kudos [?]: 687 [0], given: 20

Show Tags

09 Jul 2010, 22:59
between B and D....and my pick is (D)

Kudos [?]: 687 [0], given: 20

Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 155

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

10 Jul 2010, 04:51
d is better
_________________

R E S P E C T

Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 177

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

Show Tags

04 Aug 2010, 00:21
D for me too ............Explanations above are quite satisfactory

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 300

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 7

Show Tags

11 Aug 2010, 10:38
+1 for D

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 7

Senior Manager
Status: Fighting on
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Posts: 310

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 3

WE 1: SE - 1
WE 2: Engineer - 3

Show Tags

11 Aug 2010, 18:41
I will go with D, as this is the only choice that agrees with "atmospheric ozone levels remained constant"
+
undermines the govt explanation about ozone quantity not reducing over polar regions

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 3

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3355

Kudos [?]: 9092 [0], given: 1155

Show Tags

05 Aug 2011, 15:09
D

ozone in this case is considered global not only as antarctic cap, looking at the last sentence (conclusion) of stimulus.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9092 [0], given: 1155

Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 672

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 37

Show Tags

05 Aug 2011, 22:04
+1 for D.

Crick

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 37

Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Posts: 203

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 7

Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Ross '15, Duke '15

Show Tags

06 Aug 2011, 00:10
IMO D

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 7

Manager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 7

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE: Project Management (Computer Software)

Show Tags

06 Aug 2011, 04:11
+1 D
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://gmatclub.com/forum/a-guide-to-the-official-guide-13-for-gmat-review-134210.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 7

Re: Antarctic   [#permalink] 06 Aug 2011, 04:11

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by