In a recent article, a health expert has claimed that the toxins used

Question

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

In a recent article, a health expert has claimed that the toxins used by fumigators remain in a house or office for long periods of time, and not only kill pests, but also damage the health of human inhabitants. For example, Chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in fumigation pesticides, leads to acute lung damage. The article has met with much opposition including claims that almost all wall paints continually release nanoparticles that are known to be equally harmful to the lungs. These objections to the article should not be taken into account since __________.

A. paints are not always required to undergo toxin level analyses before receiving authorization for distribution

B. they are mostly supported by companies with financial interests in Chlorpyrifos production or fumigation services

C. the combined damage caused by Chlorpyrifos and the nanoparticles is more detrimental than that of the nanoparticles alone

D. the molecular structure of paint nanoparticles is very different to that of Chlorpyrifos

E. the polymers used in some decorative wall paints are actually more likely to cause acute lung damage than Chlorpyrifos

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

ladym09 · Answer

I don't understand why it's C over the other choices. I asked ChatGPT for an explanation but it answered B

averageenjoyer69 · Answer

I personally think that B appears more like an “ad hominem” response which goes out of the scope of the paragraph. Hence C should be the correct choice.

Aakanksha1194 · Answer

For me, I was confused between C and E.

I ruled out B because

X is harmful. But we should ignore it because Y is also harmful is not a logical line of reasoning. (This is the argument of the critics).

Regardless of the vested interest of any party, we need an answer that supports the argument on the basis of "health".

I chose C over E because A and B combined would be more harmful. Hence, all the more reason to support the ban on fumigation.

adichat2711 · Answer

I cancelled C because opposition includes CLAIMS about nanoparticles and not facts.So, we dont quite know if C is true or not.

Aakanksha1194 · Answer

Remember, we must support the argument. None of the options question the validity of this.

The fact that this arises from the vested interest of some entity does not question the validity. It is a may or may not situation - The claims might still be valid even if they are in the interest of some entity. So you must follow , another line of reasoning.

Rohanx9 · Answer

Bunuel , can we please get the OA explanation for this one? There seems to be a bit of contention on whether its B or C.

To me the answer is B.

Premises:
Substance F (fumigators) cause health issues. Substance P (paint) also causes health issues.
Conclusion: Therefore, substance F causing damage isn't an issue as substance P also does.

We need to find something that weakens this.

B. If the objections made by the article are supported by people wanting to sell substance F, it means they could be biased. It's like saying tobacco companies are objecting against saying their cigarettes don't cause damage because breathing in exhaust smoke also does. B attacks the credibility of the source.

C. If anything, this supports the argument that they should be taken into account. It also seems out of scope, as now we're talking about the combined damage instead of the damage of just the fumigators which is of concern.

PeachSnapple1 · Answer

Does this question even come from a reliable source? At the time of this post, I saw it has a tag (other), implying that it's not on par with the quality of Official questions.

Mehvish67 · Answer

I adhere firmly with option B since all other options were no opposing to the article

WhitEngagePrep · Answer

Wow y'all are all correct - this question is NOT GOOD, UNLESS there is a typo in the answer! There is actually no way that the correct answer can be C as written - it's the exact opposite of what we want from the right answer! So if anything, I would agree that the only possible answer is B, but even that is really NOT GMAT-like at all! I would think that a real correct answer here might be C but with the wording is NO more detrimental instead! Let's break this apart! 1. Identify the Question Type On the surface we have a fill-in-the-blank question, so we need to review the language of the sentence to see what specific type we're dealing with (usually paradox, strengthen, conclusion/inference, or assumption). The language these objections should NOT be taken into account SINCE indicates that this sentence is opposing what came before. Since we're strengthening that switch, it's technically an Explain a Paradox question! For these questions, get clear on what the paradox is first! 2. Deconstruct the Argument - fumigation toxins are dangerous to human lungs - BUT we shouldn't be worried because house paint is just as dangerous to human lungs (article conclusion) PARADOX: even though the article says paint is just as dangerous, we should IGNORE (discount that)... WHY?? 3. Pause & Plan We need to not care about the idea that paint is just as dangerous? Maybe we can show that the nanoparticles released might be equally harmful, but the amount that gets released in houses is so small that it doesn't actually affect people? Or maybe we see that there is a max impact to the lungs, so having the paint + chlorpyrifos is no different than having either of them separately (like the cumulative impacts aren't any bigger if exposed to two rather than one). We could also technically say that the article is wrong or bad, but that sortof attack on credibility or undermining a supposed fact is rarely the move the GMAT will make! 4. Eliminate A - We don't care what it takes for parts to be authorized, we already know they're apparently "dangerous." - ELIMINATE B - well this would say that the article could be biased or lying - KEEP (but with reservation about GMAT-quality) C - this is the opposite of what we want, if the combo impact is worse then we absolutely should still care about having BOTH in our houses - ELIMINATE D - we don't care if the structure is different, we have already been told the impact is the same and that's what we care about - ELIMINATE E - if anything this strengthens the idea that we should be pointing out other dangerous stuff like the article did, but we're bringing in something new (polymers) so in GMAT-land this would technically be out of scope - ELIMINATE So that leaves only crappy answer B. But if that's all we get, we pick it! But nice catch Mehvish67 PeachSnapple1 Rohanx9 ladym09 - I would argue that this question is only worth studying if choice C is changed to say is NO more detrimental (and B is rewritten to be clearly wrong since this could be argued as a crap right answer currently). Hope this helps!

Whit

bb · Answer

I agree as well. The way that the argument is structured right now, B. seems to be the more correct answer.

PS. I can see how the test writer was trying to position this but the set up is not fit with C.

PS. Here is the OA and explanation by the way:
https://www.bloombergprep.com/practice/ ... nt-format/

PeachSnapple1 · Answer

I wonder that's why the GMAC spends around 3k USD to design a question. No wonder nothing can beat the OG Verbal questions.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

In a recent article, a health expert has claimed that the toxins used by fumigators remain in a house or office for long periods of time, and not only kill pests, but also damage the health of human inhabitants. For example, Chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in fumigation pesticides, leads to acute lung damage. The article has met with much opposition including claims that almost all wall paints continually release nanoparticles that are known to be equally harmful to the lungs. These objections to the article should not be taken into account since __________.

A. paints are not always required to undergo toxin level analyses before receiving authorization for distribution

Incorrect.

This is a "Complete the Argument" format question. The missing argument part follows the reason conjunction since, so it's a premise, which supports the conclusion that preceded it. Therefore, this is a Conclusion Strengthening question:

Premise A: an expert claimed that fumigation damages human health
 +
Premise B: Chlorpyrifos, an ingredient in fumigation pesticides, causes lung damage
 +
Premise C: objectors claim that wall paints cause the same damage to the lungs as Chlorpyrifos
 =
Conclusion: the opposing views should be ignored

Strengthening Data: ?

You are required to complete the argument with data that strengthens the conclusion that the objections to the health expert's claim should be ignored, or detracts from those objections.

This answer choice weakens the conclusion and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. If paints are not always tested for toxin levels, then we are led to believe that a lot of them are really poisonous, as claimed by the objectors. Therefore, this statement strengthens those defending fumigation.

B. they are mostly supported by companies with financial interests in Chlorpyrifos production or fumigation services

Incorrect.

While this answer choice may appear to strengthen the conclusion, it is actually irrelevant, and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. Although companies with financial interests in fumigation may have ulterior motives, and in some cases may be less objective, their objection to the article's claim may still be 100% accurate.

C. the combined damage caused by Chlorpyrifos and the nanoparticles is more detrimental than that of the nanoparticles alone

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion and therefore logically completes the argument. The fact that wall paint is also harmful doesn't take away the harm caused by the fumigation, it only makes the overall level of harm worse. Therefore, the claim that wall paint is harmful has no effect on the harm caused by fumigation and can be ignored.

D. the molecular structure of paint nanoparticles is very different to that of Chlorpyrifos

Incorrect.

This is a "Complete the Argument" format question. The missing argument part follows the reason conjunction since, so it's a premise, which supports the conclusion that preceded it. Therefore, this is a Conclusion Strengthening question:

Premise A: an expert claimed that fumigation damages human health
 +
Premise B: Chlorpyrifos, an ingredient in fumigation pesticides, causes lung damage
 +
Premise C: objectors claim that wall paints cause the same damage to the lungs as Chlorpyrifos
 =
Conclusion: the opposing views should be ignored

Strengthening Data: ?

You are required to complete the argument with data that strengthens the conclusion that the objections to the health expert's claim should be ignored, or detracts from those objections.

This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. The fact that the two substances are different does not automatically mean that their effects are substantially different and therefore does nothing to refute the objectors' claim.

E. the polymers used in some decorative wall paints are actually more likely to cause acute lung damage than Chlorpyrifos

Incorrect.

This answer choice weakens the conclusion and therefore cannot logically complete the argument. The fact that the paint is  more likely  to cause damage only gives us the impression that what the objectors to the article are saying is true.

anushree01 · Answer

I chose C over E because A and B combined would be more harmful. Hence, all the more reason to support the ban on fumigation.

In a recent article, a health expert has claimed that the toxins used

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In a recent article, a health expert has claimed that the toxins used

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards