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

 It is currently 26 Mar 2017, 18:05

### 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 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Pill Representative
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2054
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 390

Kudos [?]: 1383 [3] , given: 8

In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2013, 18:02
3
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

34% (02:48) correct 66% (02:07) wrong based on 819 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide with 148 days of unhealthy air after a report was published by the Environmental Protection Agency. In early 2010, a series of pollution control measures were enacted by local government. Still, that year the city recorded smog alerts on 153 days and 160 days the following year. In 2012, however, the number of smog alerts in Los Bernardinos dropped to 118. Air pollutants from cars, buses and trucks, particularly ground-level ozone and particulate matter, can worsen respiratory diseases and trigger asthma attacks. These pollutants have been measured by gas spectrography from 2009-2012.

Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Bernardinos between 2009 and 2012?

(A) The 2010 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Bernardinos were put into effect in 2012.

(B) In early 2012, the Pollution Control Board of Los Bernardinos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful.

(C) In early 2012, a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented.

(D) In 2011, the mayor of Los Bernardinos 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 (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area.

Original Source: Practice Pill Platform
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Posts: 29
GPA: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [5] , given: 35

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2013, 11:15
5
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Must be (C)

(A) The 2010 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Bernardinos were put into effect in 2012. This will be helpful in understanding the sudden drop in the number of unhealthy days in 2012

(B) In early 2012, the Pollution Control Board of Los Bernardinos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful. If the scale level threshold was increased, then this statement would provide a reason for the drop

(C) In early 2012, a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented. The catch here is that the spectrometer was invented but does not mention whether the city has used the same or not

(D) In 2011, the mayor of Los Bernardinos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures. Since the industries are excluded, automatically the unhealthy days will come down

(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area. This provides a clear info on the analysis provided above
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2013
Posts: 184
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 25

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2013, 03:06
I started reading from E -> A (since it's a "which of the following")

Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Bernardinos between 2009 and 2012?

(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area. (Hmm...maybe. It refers to the behavior of carbon monoxide, still not assured that THIS was a cause. Put a "?")

(D) In 2011, the mayor of Los Bernardinos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures. (Definitely a cause, the industries were free to pollute)

(C) In early 2012, a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented. (I asked myself: "So what?")

(B) In early 2012, the Pollution Control Board of Los Bernardinos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful.

(A) The 2010 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Bernardinos were put into effect in 2012.
Intern
Joined: 11 Aug 2013
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2013, 16:16
Conclusion-->days of unhealthy days first decreased in 2012
Evidence--> 2010, unhealthy days increased to 153 days. 2011, unhealthy days increased to 160 days. In 2012, the number of smog alerts is Los Bernardinos dropped to 118
Assumption--> The pollution control measures did not have any effect on the environnement until 2012
A--Can be a reason for the unhealthy days increasing from 2009 to 2012 since nothing was done between 2009 to 2012 (Control measures were not put into effect until 2012)
B--if the amount of air pollution considered unhealthy was higher than it actually should be, the control measures put into effect would be ineffective or would have limited impact
C--Can have an effect but ????? (lets go through all the answer choices and then decide)
D--Because the large donors were exempt, they will continue to pollute the air
E--This is almost the same as the assumption
By elimination it is obvious that the answer is not A, B,D,E since they can all strongly support the assumption....
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 463
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 58

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2014, 02:35
I have a question on how to choose between C and D.
D can explain why the pollution was high, but in 2011 it should have gone down...
What am I missing here?
Intern
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 31
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 18

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2015, 08:45
In Choice B, It said that It has revised the scale, but it did not say whether it is increased or decreased. If it is increased the level (less strict) then it must have gone down in 2012. If its the opposite then the argument is not true. Hence I chose this answer. I can see that C is much stronger and its not linked with city at all.

Can anyone suggest why B is wrong?

Thanks,
G.
Optimus Prep Instructor
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1795
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 415 [0], given: 22

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2015, 05:56
govind440 wrote:
In Choice B, It said that It has revised the scale, but it did not say whether it is increased or decreased. If it is increased the level (less strict) then it must have gone down in 2012. If its the opposite then the argument is not true. Hence I chose this answer. I can see that C is much stronger and its not linked with city at all.

Can anyone suggest why B is wrong?

Thanks,
G.

I see what you mean about B. They could have revised the scale for what is unhealthful. But that would require an assumption that the scale of pollutants measured by gas spectrography is the same scale as the health indicator scale. That is, the range of what is measured by spectrography may be much larger than the range of what is considered healthy.
_________________

# Janielle Williams

Customer Support

Special Offer: $80-100/hr. Online Private Tutoring GMAT On Demand Course$299
Free Online Trial Hour

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 355
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 403

In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2015, 06:32
Why not D ?

The question stem wants an explanation that is LEAST helpful in explaining the drop.

D is exactly the opposite. If the industries were exempted, they might have continued to pollute and hence why would the levels drop?

On the other hand, C states that a new meter was invented. This option may still be able to explain the drop if we make further assumptions, although it may even help explain the opposite.

I am convinced that between C and D , C is better.

I think it is better to stick to the Official questions
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10676
Followers: 958

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2016, 04:03
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Posts: 60
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2016, 23:26
(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area.

(E) says after 2 yrs the particles are break down helps to reduce but the release of ozone in every year could be same compensating what ever has been break down that year. No where it mentioned that the release of ozone is reducing year on year.
Means the levels of ozone or pollutants released are same every year and every year the break down is also normal so there is no increase or decrease.

Why cannot this be least one could explain the decrease of pollutants.

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2959
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Followers: 437

Kudos [?]: 1944 [0], given: 22

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2016, 08:57
ravikrishna1979 wrote:
(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area.

(E) says after 2 yrs the particles are break down helps to reduce but the release of ozone in every year could be same compensating what ever has been break down that year. No where it mentioned that the release of ozone is reducing year on year.
Means the levels of ozone or pollutants released are same every year and every year the break down is also normal so there is no increase or decrease.

Why cannot this be least one could explain the decrease of pollutants.

Yes, you have a point. Any reduction in pollutants should immediately reflect on the atmosphere, even though the pollutants may take 2 years or any period of time to break down since the cycle of pollutant addition and breaking down occurs continuously. Hence option E also does not help explain the pollutant level.
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2015
Posts: 42
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 130

Re: In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2017, 10:10
Dear experts,

The Question stem asks 'Which choice will explain LEAST the trend of measurements in the City from 2009-2012?'.

Option C says, An accurate instrument was invented in 2012.
This choice is very attractive. Can we go that far to conclude to the earlier readings of 128,153, and 160 were not accurate?
We cannot question the premises, but can we doubt about the accuracy?
In that case, The reading of 2012 is correct and explains the sudden drop.

Option D.
It tells about bribe case in 2011. So what exactly to interpret? In that case, the sudden drop in 2012 is effect of bribe of 2011?
And if yes, then why not to assume that the case was exposed in 2011 and it ended then only? I am not sure about my reasoning of Option D.

Please also elaborate on Option C.
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2959
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Followers: 437

Kudos [?]: 1944 [0], given: 22

In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2017, 03:22
ravi19012015 wrote:
Dear experts,

The Question stem asks 'Which choice will explain LEAST the trend of measurements in the City from 2009-2012?'.

Option C says, An accurate instrument was invented in 2012.
This choice is very attractive. Can we go that far to conclude to the earlier readings of 128,153, and 160 were not accurate?
We cannot question the premises, but can we doubt about the accuracy?
In that case, The reading of 2012 is correct and explains the sudden drop.

Option D.
It tells about bribe case in 2011. So what exactly to interpret? In that case, the sudden drop in 2012 is effect of bribe of 2011?
And if yes, then why not to assume that the case was exposed in 2011 and it ended then only? I am not sure about my reasoning of Option D.

Please also elaborate on Option C.

Correct answer must explain why the pollution level went up in 2011 and then dropped in 2012.

Option D indicates that some industries were exempted - this may result in a rise in pollutants in the air because these industries might no longer bother to control their emissions. So the rise in pollutants may be explained by this event, but not the drop. Thus D is NOT an explanation and hence could be a correct answer.

On the other hand, an invention of a more sensitive instrument may explain the rise in number of smog alert days recorded, but again this does not explain the subsequent drop.

Moreover, E could also be a possible answer as discussed above (i.e. it cannot explain the rise and then drop in pollution levels).

In my opinion, there is a problem with the question.
In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide   [#permalink] 26 Feb 2017, 03:22
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The highest-ranking detectives in the city s police department are als 2 05 Mar 2017, 05:22
6 #Top150 CR: In 2009 the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst 10 01 Jan 2016, 01:18
In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air 5 30 Oct 2007, 12:44
In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air 7 26 Jul 2007, 23:13
In 1986, the city of Los Diablos had 20 days on which air 17 07 Jun 2007, 22:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by