GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Sep 2018, 18:26

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 287
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 640 Q40 V37
GMAT 2: 650 Q43 V36
GMAT 3: 600 Q47 V27
GPA: 3.3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jan 2016, 04:53
1
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:30) correct 43% (01:27) wrong based on 588 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws designed to eliminate carbon emissions from coal-powered factories. The Environmental Protection Administration commended the state on its groundbreaking legislation, noting that these laws would go further than any other of their kind, and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry. Yet data for the fiscal year 2012 shows that the amount of carbon emitted by coal-powered factories was actually a fraction of a percent higher in 2012 than it had been in 2009.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the paradox highlighted above?

(A) Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.

(B) More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.

(C) Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.

(D) In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.

(E) Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.

D. There’s a subtle gap in logic at play in this question – the legislature passed these laws to reduce carbon emissions, but the laws were not necessarily implemented.

And if the laws were not implemented by 2012, the 2012 carbon emission totals would not reflect the mission of the laws.

Choice D exploits that gap, noting that the laws did not take effect until well into 2012 (or afterward), in which case the laws could still be groundbreaking but just not at work yet.

Choice A is a trap answer – even if “some” pieces of the legislation were scaled back, those that weren’t scaled back should still be expected to produce some kind of negative pressure on emissions.

Choice B is irrelevant – as the argument is only about coal powered plants and the emissions from them, oil powered plants do not matter.

Choice C is the most popular trap answer. That two-year implementation timeframe would still mean that the laws would be fully in place by the middle of 2011, and should therefore have produced a reduction in 2012 emissions.

And choice E should also help reduce coal-related emissions, as any coal plant that became an oil plant would no longer emit coal-related emissions, causing a decrease in coal emissions.

_________________

KUDO me plenty

Most Helpful Expert Reply
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6800
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jan 2016, 05:26
3
2
shasadou wrote:
In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws designed to eliminate carbon emissions from coal-powered factories. The Environmental Protection Administration commended the state on its groundbreaking legislation, noting that these laws would go further than any other of their kind, and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry. Yet data for the fiscal year 2012 shows that the amount of carbon emitted by coal-powered factories was actually a fraction of a percent higher in 2012 than it had been in 2009.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the paradox highlighted above?

A. Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.

B. More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.

C. Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.

D. In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.

E. Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.


Hi,

let us first rephrase the para ..

The state,in 2009, passed laws restricting the emission of carbon from factoreis etc, laws for which the state government has been appreciated. However even after three years in 2012, there has rather been increase in emissions.
Answer should help in resolving this paradox..

lets see the choices..

A. Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.
some provision may have been scaled back but the effect of other provisions should have been visible...Incorrect

B. More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.
Out of context... we are talking of only those that are affected

C. Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.
we are talking of effects after 3 years and this only explains for the first two years

D. In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.
Correct...This tells us taht the provisions were not in place for these three years, and so the observation in 2012

E. Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.[/quote]
We are talking of emission from coal powered factories.. Incorrect

ans D
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

General Discussion
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jul 2014
Posts: 94
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2016, 07:42
chetan2u wrote:
shasadou wrote:
In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws designed to eliminate carbon emissions from coal-powered factories. The Environmental Protection Administration commended the state on its groundbreaking legislation, noting that these laws would go further than any other of their kind, and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry. Yet data for the fiscal year 2012 shows that the amount of carbon emitted by coal-powered factories was actually a fraction of a percent higher in 2012 than it had been in 2009.

Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the paradox highlighted above?

A. Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.

B. More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.

C. Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.

D. In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.

E. Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.


Hi,

let us first rephrase the para ..

The state,in 2009, passed laws restricting the emission of carbon from factoreis etc, laws for which the state government has been appreciated. However even after three years in 2012, there has rather been increase in emissions.
Answer should help in resolving this paradox..

lets see the choices..

A. Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.
some provision may have been scaled back but the effect of other provisions should have been visible...Incorrect

B. More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.
Out of context... we are talking of only those that are affected

C. Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.
we are talking of effects after 3 years and this only explains for the first two years

D. In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.
Correct...This tells us taht the provisions were not in place for these three years, and so the observation in 2012

E. Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.

We are talking of emission from coal powered factories.. Incorrect

ans D[/quote]


Hi chetan2u,

I understand your reasoning and thanks for the explanation.
However , I have one question.
The question stem says "and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry"
It seems it is telling that already coal industry was in favor of the law because they said it was fair and cost effective. that means its not going hit them back when implemented.
So does the authority really had a reason to worry about loss of support from coal industry ?
_________________

The Mind ~ Muscle Connection
My GMAT Journey is Complete.Going to start the MBA in Information Management from 2016
Good Luck everyone.

Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6800
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2016, 09:10
1
tryambaks wrote:

Hi chetan2u,

I understand your reasoning and thanks for the explanation.
However , I have one question.
The question stem says "and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry"
It seems it is telling that already coal industry was in favor of the law because they said it was fair and cost effective. that means its not going hit them back when implemented.
So does the authority really had a reason to worry about loss of support from coal industry ?


Hi,
Although the choice is the best and we have to take the choice as true, your reasoning can be correct but for word 'several'..
Since the Q para says that several owners agree, We are not aware how many do not agree...
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 486
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2016, 00:39
Top Contributor
I was between C &D but rejected D because of following statement: "the amount of carbon emitted by coal-powered factories was actually a fraction of a percent higher in 2012 than it had been in 2009."

I was not sure why the emission % will increase when legislation was delayed till 2000.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2683
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2016, 11:37
1
shasadou wrote:
In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws designed to eliminate carbon emissions from coal-powered factories. The Environmental Protection Administration commended the state on its groundbreaking legislation, noting that these laws would go further than any other of their kind, and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry. Yet data for the fiscal year 2012 shows that the amount of carbon emitted by coal-powered factories was actually a fraction of a percent higher in 2012 than it had been in 2009.



is it really a 700 lvl question?

to solve the paradox questions, we can use the below magic formula:

Because - new information-, fact A is true, while B is true as well.

A. Some of the provisions in the legislation were scaled back due to budgetary constraints.
irrelevant

B. More than half the factories in the state are oil-powered plants and were not subject to the new legislation.
but do the oil-powered plants, not subjected to the new legislation, produce carbon emission? technically yes, but since it's gmat, we can't know for sure :)

C. Factories subject to the law were provided with tax breaks and given up to two years to retrofit their facilities in order to ease the burden of reaching compliance with the new legislation.
2009+2 years = 2011 - can't explain.

D. In anticipation of the 2012 elections, the legislature structured the package to take effect after the elections were completed rather than risk loss of support from the coal industry.
aha, so basically the laws were not enforced in 2009, and as such, plants continued to work as they did before, and as a result, even more emission was released.

E. Rather than invest in clean coal technology required by the legislation, several coal-powered plants converted their operations to run on oil power, removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the new laws.
same question as I had in B - oil powered plants produce carbon emission? are we 100% sure ? no.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 102
Location: United States (CA)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V42
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Dec 2016, 09:19
chetan2u wrote:
tryambaks wrote:

Hi chetan2u,

I understand your reasoning and thanks for the explanation.
However , I have one question.
The question stem says "and even the owners of several coal-powered factories expressed their appreciation of the state's care in ensuring that the laws were fair and cost-effective for industry"
It seems it is telling that already coal industry was in favor of the law because they said it was fair and cost effective. that means its not going hit them back when implemented.
So does the authority really had a reason to worry about loss of support from coal industry ?


Hi,
Although the choice is the best and we have to take the choice as true, your reasoning can be correct but for word 'several'..
Since the Q para says that several owners agree, We are not aware how many do not agree...


tryambaks's reasoning will only come into picture when you have assess whether D is true or not. But here we just have to take the option for what it says (like chetan2u mentioned) - the enforcement was delayed until 2012 - and evaluate whether it helps explain the paradox.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 335
Location: India
Schools: INSEAD Jan '19
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 3.82
WE: Engineering (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2018, 07:58

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



There’s a subtle gap in logic at play in this question – the legislature passed these laws to reduce carbon emissions, but the laws were not necessarily implemented. And if the laws were not implemented by 2012, the 2012 carbon emission totals would not reflect the mission of the laws. Choice D exploits that gap, noting that the laws did not take effect until well into 2012 (or afterward), in which case the laws could still be groundbreaking but just not at work yet. Choice A is a trap answer – even if “some” pieces of the legislation were scaled back, those that weren’t scaled back should still be expected to produce some kind of negative pressure on emissions. Choice B is irrelevant – as the argument is only about coal powered plants and the emissions from them, oil powered plants do not matter. Choice C is the most popular trap answer. That two-year implementation timeframe would still mean that the laws would be fully in place by the middle of 2011, and should therefore have produced a reduction in 2012 emissions. And choice E should also help reduce coal-related emissions, as any coal plant that became an oil plant would no longer emit coal-related emissions, causing a decrease in coal emissions.
_________________

It seems Kudos button not working correctly with all my posts...

Please check if it is working with this post......

is it?....

Anyways...Thanks for trying :cool:

GMAT Club Bot
Re: In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws &nbs [#permalink] 02 Sep 2018, 07:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In June of 2009, the state legislature passed a series of laws

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.