It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 05:20

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1

### 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 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 116

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

In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2006, 08:14
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 7 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

16. In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air pollution reached unhealthful amounts and a smog alert was put into effect. In early 1987, new air pollution control measures were enacted, but the city had smog alerts on 31 days that year and on 39 days the following year. In 1989, however, the number of smog alerts in Los Diablos dropped to sixteen. The main air pollutants in Los Diablos are ozone and carbon monoxide, and since 1986 the levels of both have been monitored by gas spectrography.

Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Diablos between 1986 and 1989?

(A) The 1987 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Diablos were put into effect in November of 1988.
(B) In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented.
(C) In February of 1989, the Pollution Control Board of Los Diablos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful.
(D) In 1988 the mayor of Los Diablos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures.
(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area.
_________________

All the best!!
shinewine

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

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 162

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

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2006, 08:18
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
E

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

SVP
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2302

Kudos [?]: 483 [0], given: 0

Schools: Darden

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2006, 10:20
I'll go with E.

Kudos [?]: 483 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 230

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2006, 20:54
Me too went with E, but E is not the OA.
Think on E independently without keeping in mind the other choices and then you would know that it does explain the drop in pollution levels.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 337 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2006, 21:55
I would go with D.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 337 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 713

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2006, 22:00
B for me
my first choice was E
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2006, 22:34
ps_dahiya wrote:
I would go with D.

If the mayor exempted companies from pollution control measures it could explain the high pollution levels of 1988??

I would go with B. The invention of the spectrograph cannot contribute to rise or fall in pollution levels IMO.

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 61

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

Location: India

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2006, 23:03
B it should be as it talks about invention,not the actual use. .(Do not infer too much)

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

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 337 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2006, 23:12
dwivedys wrote:
ps_dahiya wrote:
I would go with D.

If the mayor exempted companies from pollution control measures it could explain the high pollution levels of 1988??

I would go with B. The invention of the spectrograph cannot contribute to rise or fall in pollution levels IMO.

As said in the passage that levels were monitered using gas spectrography. In 1989 they using the new improved instrument they found that the earlier instrument was giving inaccurate information in 1987 to 1988. But in 1989, it was found that because of bad instrument the days that were considered high pollution days were actually not high pollution days. So it explains levels in all those years.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 337 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2006, 23:37
ps_dahiya wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
ps_dahiya wrote:
I would go with D.

If the mayor exempted companies from pollution control measures it could explain the high pollution levels of 1988??

I would go with B. The invention of the spectrograph cannot contribute to rise or fall in pollution levels IMO.

As said in the passage that levels were monitered using gas spectrography. In 1989 they using the new improved instrument they found that the earlier instrument was giving inaccurate information in 1987 to 1988. But in 1989, it was found that because of bad instrument the days that were considered high pollution days were actually not high pollution days. So it explains levels in all those years.

You are right Dahiya Boss.. I stand corrected.

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 358

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2006, 00:30
will go with D

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 230

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2006, 05:45
In December 1988 a new Gas Spectrometer was invented. It is only said that a new spectrometer was invented. We need to know whether it was used to check the 1989 pollution levels. They may as well had gone ahead using the same old spectrometer.

Hence, the OA - B.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 700

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2006, 05:53
I convinced with D.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 337 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2006, 06:53
gmatcrook wrote:
In December 1988 a new Gas Spectrometer was invented. It is only said that a new spectrometer was invented. We need to know whether it was used to check the 1989 pollution levels. They may as well had gone ahead using the same old spectrometer.

Hence, the OA - B.

Read the last line of argument again.

"The main air pollutants in Los Diablos are ozone and carbon monoxide, and since 1986 the levels of both have been monitored by gas spectrography. "
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 337 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 230

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2006, 07:20
Yes, but there is no evidence that the new spectrometer was used. We cannot assume that the new spectrometer was used. B just states a fact that there was an invention. It does not indicate that the new invention was used.

D, to an extent explains a possibility that due to corruption the pollution levels were quoted so low. Agreed that we dont know other sources of pollution. But, D states one possibility which we cannot refute (The argument says to assume each statement is true) and it takes a step in the direction of explaining the drop in pollution levels. There are no two ways about it.

However, even after citing B, we still need to know whether the new spectrometer was used or not.

Wot say?

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 748

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2006, 12:21
Agree with B, there is no evidence of the new spectrometer being used.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

09 Aug 2006, 12:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.