It is currently 27 Jun 2017, 00:43

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 252
In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2009, 23:07
1
KUDOS
17
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

31% (02:26) correct 69% (01:41) wrong based on 1440 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 806

### Show Tags

12 May 2009, 23:25
D

if D were true then why is there a decrease in pollutants in 1989, there should have been an increase
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 252

### Show Tags

13 May 2009, 03:26
bigtreezl wrote:
D

if D were true then why is there a decrease in pollutants in 1989, there should have been an increase

Yes, but it's not OA

I wanna check more posts before deciding whether the OA is wrong..
Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 47

### Show Tags

13 May 2009, 07:30
Minheequang wrote:

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.

A) Explains why number reduced on 1988
B) This does not. If more accurate then the numbers should have increased.
C) Explains. Now new threshould is there, which maybe greater than the previous one.
D) Explains. Since companies exempted from air pollution measures, hence the decrease.
E) Since min 2 years required to break down the pollutants, hence the effects seen after 2 years..

IMO B
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 327

### Show Tags

13 May 2009, 07:46
I also selected B initally. but bigtreezl is drawing be to D.

(B) In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented. (I belive this does not give any explaination for the pollution b/w 1986 to 1989 )
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 252

### Show Tags

13 May 2009, 07:57
imanonymoususer wrote:
Minheequang wrote:

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.

A) Explains why number reduced on 1988
B) This does not. If more accurate then the numbers should have increased. -->From which info can you say that it will increase ? I can assume that because a new monitor machine is more accurate, it will prove less smog alert case which otherwise will prove positive. The initial problem in this case is that the control measures didn't work, but a new spectrometer helps solve the problem
C) Explains. Now new threshould is there, which maybe greater than the previous one.
D) Explains. Since companies exempted from air pollution measures, hence the decrease. --> I don't think so. A number of companies are exempted from controlled pollution measures, it means that such companies will pose more pollution. So why does the case of smog alert become fewer ? --> it strengthens the discrepancy
E) Since min 2 years required to break down the pollutants, hence the effects seen after 2 years..

IMO B
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 970

### Show Tags

14 May 2009, 09:46
1
KUDOS
I recall this question and

The OA is B apparently, because even though the gas spectometer was invented, it doesn't mean it was used.

But I'm still sticking with D!
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 806

### Show Tags

14 May 2009, 09:51
I recall this question and

The OA is B apparently, because even though the gas spectometer was invented, it doesn't mean it was used.

But I'm still sticking with D!

wow, what a dirty trick! good question though
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 102

### Show Tags

14 May 2009, 11:48
IMO D too
If some companies are exempted, it is not going to bring pollution levels down
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 252

### Show Tags

14 May 2009, 18:04
Anyone else ?

There's one more thing that makes D the best answer: "in 1988" --> indefinite time, so I can assume that it happened at the early 1988, affecting the whole year 1988 and 1989, but why the 2 year had 2 different outcome ?
Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 47

### Show Tags

17 May 2009, 01:07
Minheequang wrote:
imanonymoususer wrote:
Minheequang wrote:

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.

A) Explains why number reduced on 1988
B) This does not. If more accurate then the numbers should have increased. -->From which info can you say that it will increase ? I can assume that because a new monitor machine is more accurate, it will prove less smog alert case which otherwise will prove positive. The initial problem in this case is that the control measures didn't work, but a new spectrometer helps solve the problem
C) Explains. Now new threshould is there, which maybe greater than the previous one.
D) Explains. Since companies exempted from air pollution measures, hence the decrease. --> I don't think so. A number of companies are exempted from controlled pollution measures, it means that such companies will pose more pollution. So why does the case of smog alert become fewer ? --> it strengthens the discrepancy
E) Since min 2 years required to break down the pollutants, hence the effects seen after 2 years..

IMO B

Agreed that introduction of new spectrometer could have also cause less smog alerts.
All the more reason why it "LEAST" explains the air pollution levels.
Manager
Joined: 10 May 2009
Posts: 65

### Show Tags

21 May 2009, 07:46
what's the final OA?!
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 252

### Show Tags

21 May 2009, 07:56
prinits wrote:
what's the final OA?!

OA is B, which I'm struggling against
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 635

### Show Tags

23 May 2009, 00:01
I am not convinced on B. D is my choice becuase whether the new meter is used is beyond the argument.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Intern
Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 17
Schools: Wake Forest Evening
WE 1: ~12 years total

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 07:59
I still like D.
Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
Schools: Queen's E-MBA

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 11:20
The questions is "what would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels" and D is not at all helping in explaining, it is rather helping to weaken the conclusion. I am convienced with B (though didn't ans at) because it is the LEAST likely reason for the decrease.
_________________

Please give KUDOS if you like the post

Intern
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 18

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 11:36
I agree w/the OA. Just because a new instrument was invented does not mean that it was used to measure pollutant levels in the atmosphere.
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 164

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 12:31
Minheequang wrote:

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B

I too chose D

but why can't we think it that way...

the question doesn't ask for the reason for decrease in pollution.. it asks which one is least helpful in explaining pollution levels so considering that

I think B is correct answer
Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 50

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 12:48
This question is very interesting. It is asking for the LEAST helpful answer that supports the assertion not the the answer that weakens the arguement. I must read more carefully. Good question!
_________________

My will shall shape the future. Whether I fail or succeed shall be no man's doing but my own. I am the force; I can clear any obstacle before me or I can be lost in the maze. My choice; my responsibility; win or lose, only I hold the key to my destiny - Elaine Maxwell

Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 311

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2010, 14:30
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. = the mayor accepting money does not contribute much to the air pollution control.(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area.
Re: Los Diablos   [#permalink] 05 Mar 2010, 14:30

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 63 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality an 1 01 May 2017, 11:18
23 In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide 13 25 Apr 2017, 13:38
13 In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air 17 22 Mar 2017, 21:05
In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air 5 23 Aug 2012, 01:16
17 In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air 30 20 Feb 2016, 18:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by