Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 28 May 2017, 17:31

### 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: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 446
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 104 [5] , given: 157

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

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 05:06
5
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

70% (02:52) correct 30% (01:58) wrong based on 414 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.
_________________

If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [2] , given: 3

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 20:55
2
KUDOS
I vouch for B, a new gas spectrometer might have been invented in 1988, but how can we assume it served any purpose or was actually used.
Intern
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 49
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [2] , given: 3

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 22:01
2
KUDOS
The answer is B. The reason it is the answer is because it says the new system was more accurate. Being more accurate doesn't mean that the old results are not true, it only means that they are now more certain about the levels. It does the least to tells us that that what is in the passage is true, because with B we're not certain whether the new gas spectrometer helped or made worse the evidence in the passage.

E helps because it tells us why in 1989 we started to see such a drastic drop.

D helps because it would give a good reason why the drop in incidences began.

I hope this helps.

Jared
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 257
Schools: DukeTuck,Kelogg,Darden
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 82 [2] , given: 28

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2010, 12:46
2
KUDOS
its B.

its not D because D says

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.

Now how does one know that the pollution was because of industries and not because of say a large amount of cars on the road.
_________________

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

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1132
Location: United States
Followers: 278

Kudos [?]: 3115 [2] , given: 123

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

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2013, 00:39
2
KUDOS
jaituteja wrote:
BlueRobin 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.

(B) In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented.
Since only invention is mentioned about the accurate gas meter, we cannot deduce whether it was used or not... SO this makes no impact on the conclusion.

(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.
Scale was revised, don't know whether is was revised upward or downward.... This one is also tempting..

(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.
Since, it is not mentioned whether the same industries made any impact on the air pollution. This can also be a good answer choice..

Please explain why B is correct and C and D are incorrect...
Please refer to my explanations above the let me know for the flaws....

Hi jaituteja

This is a reversed question of "Resolve the paradox". It means all answers that help to explain the paradox is WRONG. The answer that does not help is CORRECT.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact: In 1986: the city had smog alerts on 20 days .
Fact: Early 1987, new air pollution control measures were enacted,
Fact: BUT in 1989, the number of smog alerts dropped to 16.

Note: in resolve the paradox, you will expect not to see a conclusion, JUST FACTS.

Question: Which of the following statements 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.
Wrong. Because A shows in the end of 1988 the air pollution control measures actually enacted. That’s why 1989: the number of smog alerts in Los Diablos dropped to 16.
==> So A helps to explain the paradox. Hence, A is wrong

(B) In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented.
Correct. Please read carefully, “Invented” differs from “applied”. The fact that "new gas spectrometer was invented" is true, but there is nothing about the city used the new gas spectrometer to measure air pollution.
==> So B does not help to explain the paradox, hence B is correct.

(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.
Wrong. KEY point is: In early 1987, the city enacted new air pollution control measures ==> it means the city wants to reduce air pollution amount. How did the city do? One of those solutions is “revise the scale”. Do you think the city will revise the scale upward (the air pollution amount will increase). No. that's not the purpose of the city. Thus, the city will make the new scale strictrer ==> to reduce the air pollution amount as much as possible. Because of the stricter scale ==> the city had smog alerts on 39 days in 1988.
==> So C helps to explain the paradox. Hence, C is wrong.

(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.
Wrong. If the city received donations from local industries to exempt those same industries from air pollution control measures. It means the "real" air pollution amount was more than the city's measure. However, air pollution amount has been monitored by gas spectrography that works independently. ==> The the number of smog alert days in 1988 increased.
==> D helps to explain the paradox. Hence, D is wrong.

(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area.
Wrong. Because main air pollution – Ozone and Carbon monoxide - require a minimum of two years to break down naturally. Thus the number of smog alert day increased in 1987 and 1988, after that it decreased in 1989.
==> E helps to explain the paradox. Hence, E is wrong

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Intern
Joined: 25 May 2010
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [1] , given: 0

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2010, 08:18
1
KUDOS
Regarding D,

Doesn't it go against the given information? In '89, the smog # went down. However, if the mayor exempted companies from pollution control, there would be MORE pollution, and hence MORE smog #.

Therefore, it doesn't help in explaining why the number went down.

Why is this thinking wrong?
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 75
Location: United States
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 153 [1] , given: 23

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

### Show Tags

24 May 2013, 07:11
1
KUDOS
BlueRobin 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.

My initial pick was D too. But I guess after reading it the second time , I see why B makes sense.

Quote:
(B) In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented..

As other people have pointed out , it only says spectrometer was invented . No mention of it being used to monitor the levels.

Quote:
(D) In 1988 the mayor of Los Diablos was found to have acceptedlarge campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures. .

No doubt , the pollution increases , if mayor exempts those industries from air pollution measures. So accepting donations to exempt those industries , meant increase in air pollution. If we focus on the bold part above in D , it says in 1988 , the mayor was found to have accepted. It doesn't say that mayor ACCEPTED in 1988 and EXEMPTED the industries IN 1988. He was FOUND to have accepted in 1988. He might have accepted the donations before 1988 or in the middle of 1998 or end of 1988.They just found that thing in 1988. The exemption might have happened in 1987. Or if they found out by the end of 1988 , then exemption might have happened till they found out , in 1988. This kinda explains why the pollution increased till 1988. And mebbe once they found out in 1988 , what mayor had done , they might have reverted the exemptions , which is why in 1989 pollution went down . I know it is bit of a stretch to make these assumptions , but when we are to choose between B and D (In B - where you make an assumption that invented meant used + cant justify yet as to why did new and accurate instruments show lower pollution levels) , the assumptions what we made in D seems safer.

HTH
Jyothi
_________________

Jyothi hosamani

SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2069
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 394

Kudos [?]: 1442 [1] , given: 8

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

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2013, 11:20
1
KUDOS
BlueRobin 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.

The question asks which one is LEAST helpful. So you should not be worried if all of the answer choices have holes in them. You want to find the answer choice that has the most # of holes and does the least in helping to explain the discrepancy that is observed.

Notice the invention occurred toward the end of 1988. This means its effect would not be seen in smog days until 1999. So a "gas spectrometer invention" would affect results in 1989, perhaps downward. There is a hole here however because it's not "for sure" that the city ended up using the gas spectrometer for that year of 1989. It's not clear that adoption followed for the city immediately after invention. So that's the first hole.

We also see that the rise between 1987-1988 is unexplained. We have some event that explains the difference between 1988 and 1989, but what about between 1987 and 1988? There is a hole here.

You'll see that these two holes are larger than the holes in the other answer choices.
Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2010
Posts: 125
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 12

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 07:39
it should be D
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 186
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

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

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 09:20
D
Senior Manager
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 751 [0], given: 28

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 09:28
Another vote for D. Though, E is a close competitor
_________________

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

Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 186 [0], given: 76

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 12:14
dimitri92 wrote:
Another vote for D. Though, E is a close competitor

I actually thought that E, if true, would be one of the most eloquent explanations, so I wouldn't have considered E at all.
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 446
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 157

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2010, 07:55
sk818020 wrote:
The answer is B. The reason it is the answer is because it says the new system was more accurate. Being more accurate doesn't mean that the old results are not true, it only means that they are now more certain about the levels. It does the least to tells us that that what is in the passage is true, because with B we're not certain whether the new gas spectrometer helped or made worse the evidence in the passage.

E helps because it tells us why in 1989 we started to see such a drastic drop.

D helps because it would give a good reason why the drop in incidences began.

I hope this helps.

Jared

I didnt find the explanation satisfactory. "it says the new system was more accurate. Being more accurate doesn't mean that the old results are not true, it only means that they are now more certain about the levels. "

Where is it stated that they are more certain less certain about the levels because of the new system, thats an assumption just as

(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.

Option A) you could argue that in 1987 they enacted the law and thats why the level decreased. So it explains lets assume

Option B) they installed new system, so the new system shows a new reading, which should be true we cant say that it might be true or not, if we go that way then we can argue old system might have been faulty or not, but i mean i am not satisfied how this is the least helpful.

(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.

After revising they corrected the levels decreased according to new scale. So it helps.

I am trying to understand, no hard feelings.
_________________

Intern
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 49
Followers: 0

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

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2010, 09:06
BlueRobin wrote:
Where is it stated that they are more certain less certain about the levels because of the new system, thats an assumption just as

B states; In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented. The question stem says that we must assume this is true. I'm using certainty and accuracy as synonyms. The more accurate the results are the more certain you can be of those results. How could something be more accurate and not more certain. Regardless, the point is that in this particular question we are looking for the answer that is least helpful in explaining the air pollution levels. In order for B to be helpful there would have to be other information involved; for example;

1. They could actually use this gas spectrometer.
2. More accurate results would lead cause the number of smog alerts to increase and not decrease.
3. It wouldn't take a ridiculous amount of time to determine the results of the info gather by the new technology.

I could come up with more examples, but you get the picture. In order for B to be helpful we would need additional information, which is not provided in the passage.

Again I'll go through why the other choices are helpful.

A. They didn't put the laws into affect until the end of 1988, which would be a good reason why the level did not drop until 1989.
C. In 1989 they came up with a new scale which could be a good reason why the number started dropping so drastically. The new scale was less sensitive to smog levels.
D. Would be a good reason why the number of days dropped because it shows the drop is not do to decreased smog level but instead is due to the inspectors taking less readings.
E. This would be a good reason because it would mean that measures enacted in 1987 did not have an impact until 1989.

Hope this helps.

What is the OA?

Thanks,

Jared
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 446
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 157

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2010, 05:38
Official Ans is B

Quote:
B states; In December of 1988 a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented. The question stem says that we must assume this is true. I'm using certainty and accuracy as synonyms. The more accurate the results are the more certain you can be of those results. How could something be more accurate and not more certain. Regardless, the point is that in this particular question we are looking for the answer that is least helpful in explaining the air pollution levels. In order for B to be helpful there would have to be other information involved; for example;

1. They could actually use this gas spectrometer.
2. More accurate results would lead cause the number of smog alerts to increase and not decrease.
3. It wouldn't take a ridiculous amount of time to determine the results of the info gather by the new technology.

I am confused with one thing, why cant you assume that the old meter was probably showing the wrong results i.e. increased readings than actual levels, and with the installation of the new meter they started reading correct results, so its was helpful in reading the reduced readings.
_________________

Intern
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 49
Followers: 0

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

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2010, 08:33
Quote:
why cant you assume that the old meter was probably showing the wrong results

The reason you can't assume this is because the passage doesn't give us any information indicating this is a safe assumption. Again, we are basing our reasoning only on what is in the passage, regardless of what would seem to be the case in the real world or based on common sense.

The passage only states that the pollutants were monitored by a gas spectrometer. It does not say that a new gas spectrometer will cause there to be more or less alert days. It could cause more, it could cause less. Based on the passage we don't know.

Thanks,

Jared
Manager
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 177
Location: Singapore
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 5

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2010, 08:38
hmm....

I narrowed down between A and B but was not sure how to interpret, "more accurate gas spectrometer".
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Posts: 72
GMAT Date: 11-02-2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 17

Re: City of Los Diablos [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2012, 10:37
sk818020 wrote:
Quote:
why cant you assume that the old meter was probably showing the wrong results

The reason you can't assume this is because the passage doesn't give us any information indicating this is a safe assumption. Again, we are basing our reasoning only on what is in the passage, regardless of what would seem to be the case in the real world or based on common sense.

The passage only states that the pollutants were monitored by a gas spectrometer. It does not say that a new gas spectrometer will cause there to be more or less alert days. It could cause more, it could cause less. Based on the passage we don't know.

Thanks,

Jared

Hi guys,

Thanks for the explanation above.

But just to add, I feel B states that new instrument was INVENTED, as per the question we must believe it was invented but we can not assume that the same instrument was installed or used.

Hope my reasoning is right.

Thanks,
Manager
Status: exam is close ... dont know if i ll hit that number
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
Posts: 197
Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-09-2012
GPA: 3.2
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2012, 11:22
spectrometer is nowhere mentioned in the argument
so replacing it with any other instrument is same
correct me if i am wrong

i mean what does a time machine got to do with increase or decrease in pollution
_________________

just one more month for exam...

Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 41
Location: United States
Concentration: Operations, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15, NUS '16
GMAT Date: 08-27-2013
GPA: 3.46
WE: Project Management (Other)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 54

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

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2012, 22:28
i will go with option 'b' ,inventing an equipment does not mean helpful in explaining pollution levels.
coming to 'd'-if industries are exempted from pollution laws,it will effect the pollution levels.
_________________

.........................................................................................
Please give me kudos if my posts help.

Re: In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air   [#permalink] 18 Nov 2012, 22:28

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 31 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 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
24 In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air 62 22 Aug 2016, 18:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.