Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
21 Jan 2020, 06:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
86% (01:32) correct
14%
(01:46)
wrong
based on 275
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In an attempt to counter complaints that a certain pesticide is potentially hazardous to humans if absorbed into edible plants, the pesticide manufacturer has advertised that “ounce for ounce, the active ingredient in this pesticide is less toxic than the active ingredient in mouthwash.”
Which one of the following, if true, indicates a weakness in the manufacturer’s argument?
(A) The ounce-for-ounce toxicity of the active ingredient in mouthwash is less than that of most products meant for external use by humans, such as nail polish or other cosmetics.
(B) The quantity of toxins humans ingest by consuming plants treated with the pesticide is, on average, much higher than the quantity of toxins humans ingest by using mouthwash.
(C) The container in which the pesticide is packaged clearly identifies the toxic ingredients and carries warnings about their potential danger to humans.
(D) On average, the toxins present in the pesticide take longer than the toxins present in mouthwash to reach harmful levels in the human body.
(E) Since the government began to regulate the pesticide industry over ten years ago, there has been a growing awareness of the dangers of toxins used in pesticides.
Which one of the following, if true, indicates a weakness in the manufacturer’s argument?
(A) The ounce-for-ounce toxicity of the active ingredient in mouthwash is less than that of most products meant for external use by humans, such as nail polish or other cosmetics.
(B) The quantity of toxins humans ingest by consuming plants treated with the pesticide is, on average, much higher than the quantity of toxins humans ingest by using mouthwash.
(C) The container in which the pesticide is packaged clearly identifies the toxic ingredients and carries warnings about their potential danger to humans.
(D) On average, the toxins present in the pesticide take longer than the toxins present in mouthwash to reach harmful levels in the human body.
(E) Since the government began to regulate the pesticide industry over ten years ago, there has been a growing awareness of the dangers of toxins used in pesticides.
01 Mar 2021, 01:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Official Explanation
This is a percent vs. absolute number (quantity) problem. Although the percentage of toxic ingredients in the pesticide and mouthwash may be the same, the quantity of mouthwash ingested is much less—after all the mouthwash is spit out. The answer is (B).
General Discussion
28 Jan 2020, 09:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
This one is easy..
In an attempt to counter complaints that a certain pesticide is potentially hazardous to humans if absorbed into edible plants, the pesticide manufacturer has advertised that “ounce for ounce, the active ingredient in this pesticide is less toxic than the active ingredient in mouthwash.”
The argument says Ounce for Ounce contains less toxin than mouthwash, but we don't drink the mouthwash, we just wash the mouth. Immediately you can see that toxin, even if less concentrated, if ingested can make one sick. Lets see what options we have.
Which one of the following, if true, indicates a weakness in the manufacturer’s argument?
(A) The ounce-for-ounce toxicity of the active ingredient in mouthwash is less than that of most products meant for external use by humans, such as nail polish or other cosmetics.- this is beyond the realm of conclusion. and does not indicates a weakness. This is in fact in line with what the manufacturer is proposing.
(B) The quantity of toxins humans ingest by consuming plants treated with the pesticide is, on average, much higher than the quantity of toxins humans ingest by using mouthwash. - Bingo. Yes. If we are eating toxic plants even if those toxins are less concentrated than the toxin in mouthwash, it puts us at a risk. B looks good.
(C) The container in which the pesticide is packaged clearly identifies the toxic ingredients and carries warnings about their potential danger to humans. - Again just carrying warning does not preclude one from falling sick if he/she eats toxin loaded plants.
(D) On average, the toxins present in the pesticide take longer than the toxins present in mouthwash to reach harmful levels in the human body. - Okay. Does this indicate a weakness in the argument? No. Even if toxins takes longer than the toxins in mouthwash to reach harmful effect , it partially strengthens the argument. Maybe toxins in mouthwash starts harming us after 10 mins of gargling. But toxins from plant takes 10 days to show effect and indeed comes out from other end before it can do any nasty stuff in the body. :P :P funny. but a valid reasoning i guess.
(E) Since the government began to regulate the pesticide industry over ten years ago, there has been a growing awareness of the dangers of toxins used in pesticides.- This one misses the argument by a mile. Talks of random govt regulation instead of concentrating on conclusion.
SO the answer is B.
In an attempt to counter complaints that a certain pesticide is potentially hazardous to humans if absorbed into edible plants, the pesticide manufacturer has advertised that “ounce for ounce, the active ingredient in this pesticide is less toxic than the active ingredient in mouthwash.”
The argument says Ounce for Ounce contains less toxin than mouthwash, but we don't drink the mouthwash, we just wash the mouth. Immediately you can see that toxin, even if less concentrated, if ingested can make one sick. Lets see what options we have.
Which one of the following, if true, indicates a weakness in the manufacturer’s argument?
(A) The ounce-for-ounce toxicity of the active ingredient in mouthwash is less than that of most products meant for external use by humans, such as nail polish or other cosmetics.- this is beyond the realm of conclusion. and does not indicates a weakness. This is in fact in line with what the manufacturer is proposing.
(B) The quantity of toxins humans ingest by consuming plants treated with the pesticide is, on average, much higher than the quantity of toxins humans ingest by using mouthwash. - Bingo. Yes. If we are eating toxic plants even if those toxins are less concentrated than the toxin in mouthwash, it puts us at a risk. B looks good.
(C) The container in which the pesticide is packaged clearly identifies the toxic ingredients and carries warnings about their potential danger to humans. - Again just carrying warning does not preclude one from falling sick if he/she eats toxin loaded plants.
(D) On average, the toxins present in the pesticide take longer than the toxins present in mouthwash to reach harmful levels in the human body. - Okay. Does this indicate a weakness in the argument? No. Even if toxins takes longer than the toxins in mouthwash to reach harmful effect , it partially strengthens the argument. Maybe toxins in mouthwash starts harming us after 10 mins of gargling. But toxins from plant takes 10 days to show effect and indeed comes out from other end before it can do any nasty stuff in the body. :P :P funny. but a valid reasoning i guess.
(E) Since the government began to regulate the pesticide industry over ten years ago, there has been a growing awareness of the dangers of toxins used in pesticides.- This one misses the argument by a mile. Talks of random govt regulation instead of concentrating on conclusion.
SO the answer is B.
