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

It is currently 18 Oct 2018, 09:02

Booth R1 Calls in Progress:

Join us in the chat | track the decision tracker | See forum posts/summary


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 response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
V
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Posts: 488
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GPA: 3.35
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member
In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Feb 2018, 21:33
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

63% (01:37) correct 37% (01:53) wrong based on 479 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use of water hoses to push leaves, sticks, and other yard debris off of pavement into storm drains. However, the use of such water hoses had the other benefit of pushing dust and ash down the storm drains, as well, and public health officials fear that more dust and ash particles in the air will decrease air quality and lead to respiratory illnesses. Therefore, Valhalla should lift the ban.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) The respiratory illnesses that could result from increased dust and ash particles in the air are severe enough to be life-threatening.
(B) Most of the dust and ash particles in the air result from those particles being blown off of pavement.
(C) There are no methods other than the use of water hoses for removing dust and ash particles from pavement.​
(D) The drought in Valhalla is not yet severe enough to require the rationing of water.
(E) The drought in Valhalla has increased the amount of dust and ash particles on the city's pavement.

_________________

आत्मनॊ मोक्षार्थम् जगद्धिताय च

Resource: GMATPrep RCs With Solution

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 761
Location: India
Schools: ISB '20 (II)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Reviews Badge
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2018, 02:33
NandishSS wrote:
In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use of water hoses to push leaves, sticks, and other yard debris off of pavement into storm drains. However, the use of such water hoses had the other benefit of pushing dust and ash down the storm drains, as well, and public health officials fear that more dust and ash particles in the air will decrease air quality and lead to respiratory illnesses. Therefore, Valhalla should lift the ban.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A)The respiratory illnesses that could result from increased dust and ash particles in the air are severe enough to be life-threatening.
(B)Most of the dust and ash particles in the air result from those particles being blown off of pavement.
(C)There are no methods other than the use of water hoses for removing dust and ash particles from pavement.​
(D)The drought in Valhalla is not yet severe enough to require the rationing of water.
(E)The drought in Valhalla has increased the amount of dust and ash particles on the city's pavement.

Official Sol:

For those who don't anticipate the answer to this question (why not just vacuum up the dust? why does it have to be done with a hose?), the Assumption Negation Technique is helpful here. If you take the opposite of the correct answer to an assumption question, it will directly weaken the argument. If it doesn't, then that answer is incorrect.

If you negate these answers:

(A) would then say that the illnesses from dust are NOT severe enough to be life-threatening. But does that weaken the argument? This still allows for plenty of hardship to the community and good reason to remove the dust and ash.

(B) would then say that less than half the dust and ash comes from pavement. But think about if 40% of the dust and ash were indeed from pavement: wouldn't removing that from the air be a major benefit?

(C) would say that there are other ways to get rid of the ash and dust (like a vacuum or broom). If so, then there is no need to reverse the hose policy! You can still remove the harmful particles while protecting against further drought.

(D) would say that the drought conditions are severe enough to ration water. But this still leaves you weighing the public health issue of dust in the air versus limiting car washes, lawn care, showers, etc. (anything that might be rationed), so this doesn't directly attack the conclusion.

And (E) would say that the drought has not increased the amount of dust on the pavement. But as long as there was always harmful dust on the pavement, it's still a good idea to remove it, so (E) is not a necessary assumption. Choice (C) is correct.


Summary of the stimulus - ban should be lifted to remove dust

If the dust seemed to be a threat to public then having other ways to remove the dust can be used but if the ban must be removed it is assumed that there is a no other way to remove the dust

(C)


Regards,
HK
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 50000
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2018, 21:45
NandishSS wrote:
In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use of water hoses to push leaves, sticks, and other yard debris off of pavement into storm drains. However, the use of such water hoses had the other benefit of pushing dust and ash down the storm drains, as well, and public health officials fear that more dust and ash particles in the air will decrease air quality and lead to respiratory illnesses. Therefore, Valhalla should lift the ban.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A)The respiratory illnesses that could result from increased dust and ash particles in the air are severe enough to be life-threatening.
(B)Most of the dust and ash particles in the air result from those particles being blown off of pavement.
(C)There are no methods other than the use of water hoses for removing dust and ash particles from pavement.​
(D)The drought in Valhalla is not yet severe enough to require the rationing of water.
(E)The drought in Valhalla has increased the amount of dust and ash particles on the city's pavement.


VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:



For those who don't anticipate the answer to this question (why not just vacuum up the dust? why does it have to be done with a hose?), the Assumption Negation Technique is helpful here. If you take the opposite of the correct answer to an assumption question, it will directly weaken the argument. If it doesn't, then that answer is incorrect.

If you negate these answers:

(A) would then say that the illnesses from dust are NOT severe enough to be life-threatening. But does that weaken the argument? This still allows for plenty of hardship to the community and good reason to remove the dust and ash.

(B) would then say that less than half the dust and ash comes from pavement. But think about if 40% of the dust and ash were indeed from pavement: wouldn't removing that from the air be a major benefit?

(C) would say that there are other ways to get rid of the ash and dust (like a vacuum or broom). If so, then there is no need to reverse the hose policy! You can still remove the harmful particles while protecting against further drought.

(D) would say that the drought conditions are severe enough to ration water. But this still leaves you weighing the public health issue of dust in the air versus limiting car washes, lawn care, showers, etc. (anything that might be rationed), so this doesn't directly attack the conclusion.

And (E) would say that the drought has not increased the amount of dust on the pavement. But as long as there was always harmful dust on the pavement, it's still a good idea to remove it, so (E) is not a necessary assumption. Choice (C) is correct.
_________________

New to the Math Forum?
Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread | All You Need for Quant | PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!!

Resources:
GMAT Math Book | Triangles | Polygons | Coordinate Geometry | Factorials | Circles | Number Theory | Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets | PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders | GMAT Prep Software Analysis | SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS) | Tricky questions from previous years.

Collection of Questions:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat

DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.


What are GMAT Club Tests?
Extra-hard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2018, 06:12
1
B and C are close contenders. Rest can easily be eliminated.

(B)Most of the dust and ash particles in the air result from those particles being blown off of pavement.
- even if this weren't true, still not adding to the dust in air would be worth it.

(C)There are no methods other than the use of water hoses for removing dust and ash particles from pavement.​
- this more in line with the argument and E f you negate this is no way the argument can stand.

IMO C.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 208
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
CAT Tests
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2018, 10:27
Bunuel wrote:
NandishSS wrote:
In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use of water hoses to push leaves, sticks, and other yard debris off of pavement into storm drains. However, the use of such water hoses had the other benefit of pushing dust and ash down the storm drains, as well, and public health officials fear that more dust and ash particles in the air will decrease air quality and lead to respiratory illnesses. Therefore, Valhalla should lift the ban.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A)The respiratory illnesses that could result from increased dust and ash particles in the air are severe enough to be life-threatening.
(B)Most of the dust and ash particles in the air result from those particles being blown off of pavement.
(C)There are no methods other than the use of water hoses for removing dust and ash particles from pavement.​
(D)The drought in Valhalla is not yet severe enough to require the rationing of water.
(E)The drought in Valhalla has increased the amount of dust and ash particles on the city's pavement.


VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:



For those who don't anticipate the answer to this question (why not just vacuum up the dust? why does it have to be done with a hose?), the Assumption Negation Technique is helpful here. If you take the opposite of the correct answer to an assumption question, it will directly weaken the argument. If it doesn't, then that answer is incorrect.

If you negate these answers:

(A) would then say that the illnesses from dust are NOT severe enough to be life-threatening. But does that weaken the argument? This still allows for plenty of hardship to the community and good reason to remove the dust and ash.

(B) would then say that less than half the dust and ash comes from pavement. But think about if 40% of the dust and ash were indeed from pavement: wouldn't removing that from the air be a major benefit?

(C) would say that there are other ways to get rid of the ash and dust (like a vacuum or broom). If so, then there is no need to reverse the hose policy! You can still remove the harmful particles while protecting against further drought.

(D) would say that the drought conditions are severe enough to ration water. But this still leaves you weighing the public health issue of dust in the air versus limiting car washes, lawn care, showers, etc. (anything that might be rationed), so this doesn't directly attack the conclusion.

And (E) would say that the drought has not increased the amount of dust on the pavement. But as long as there was always harmful dust on the pavement, it's still a good idea to remove it, so (E) is not a necessary assumption. Choice (C) is correct.


VeritasKarishma, GMATninja2,
Hi plese help in options B and C,
In option C, we need to make a lot of assumptions like how effectively the plans can be implemented or there are no side effects/flaws in comparison to the water hoses that can release the dust particles.
In option B- if the majority of the dust particles are from pavement, then uplifting the ban can help as less dust partciles will be there in the air effecting the air quality.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 208
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
CAT Tests
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2018, 10:30
VeritasKarishma, chetan2u,
Hi plese help in options B and C. I chose B over C
In option C, we need to make a lot of assumptions like how effectively the plans can be implemented or there are no side effects/flaws in comparison to the water hoses that can release the dust particles.
In option B- if the majority of the dust particles are from pavement, then uplifting the ban can help as less dust partciles will be there in the air effecting the air quality.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 139
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2018, 20:06
I am pretty sure C is not the answer.This is a bad question.This assumption question is actually about why “THIS BAN SHOULD BE LIFTED”.For more on why C is wrong please see the LSAT question that starts with the question stem “If a person chooses to walk rather than drive”....

Like i already had an argument before once,this is surely a strengthner but not an assumption.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 139
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2018, 20:17
Just negate C once...We get “there are other methods”.Other methods being present has no effect on the advantages or disadvantages of this particular method and the fact that the ban on this method should be lifted.The ban on this method should be lifted because THIS PARTICULAR METHOD IS ADVANTAGEOUS.Like i said i urge you people to see that LSAT question.There is ron’s video that explains that LSAT question in detail.I dont remember the video name

Cheerio...

Posted from my mobile device
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8391
Location: Pune, India
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2018, 03:48
2
NandishSS wrote:
In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use of water hoses to push leaves, sticks, and other yard debris off of pavement into storm drains. However, the use of such water hoses had the other benefit of pushing dust and ash down the storm drains, as well, and public health officials fear that more dust and ash particles in the air will decrease air quality and lead to respiratory illnesses. Therefore, Valhalla should lift the ban.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A)The respiratory illnesses that could result from increased dust and ash particles in the air are severe enough to be life-threatening.
(B)Most of the dust and ash particles in the air result from those particles being blown off of pavement.
(C)There are no methods other than the use of water hoses for removing dust and ash particles from pavement.​
(D)The drought in Valhalla is not yet severe enough to require the rationing of water.
(E)The drought in Valhalla has increased the amount of dust and ash particles on the city's pavement.


Premises:
Water hoses were banned due to drought.
Water hoses used to remove dust and ash off the pavement and down the storm drains.
More dust and ash in air will cause respiratory illnesses.

Conclusion: Lift the water hose ban.

Water hoses were banned due to draught conditions ( so water is scarce). The hoses had an advantage too - they used to remove dust from pavement. Now air pollution would rise and cause illness. So lift the ban. The author is concluding that the ban needs to be lifted due to the advantage it offers. By concluding that we need to lift the ban, he is assuming that there are no other ways to remove dust from the pavement. Else, he would have suggested removal of dust from pavement while continuing with the ban (to serve the purpose of reducing water consumption). There would be a need to lift the ban only if there were no other feasible solution to the problem.

Option (C) is correct.

redskull1
Note that this question is different from the LSAT question you mentioned. The ban is a solution to another problem. If we lift it, the other problem will be back. Hence, it is not a feasible solution. That is the reason why another solution is needed.

In the LSAT question, walking is a feasible solution to reducing pollution. Hence, the existence of other feasible solutions doesn't impact it.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 139
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2018, 06:39
Thanks a lot for the reply karishma....pls help and clarify my main grouse....

“There would be a need to lift the ban only if there were no other feasible solution to the problem”————is this correct...?I feel there is nothing in the argument to suggest this.Dont you think “There is a need to lift the ban because it is really advantageous” is a better in the scope assumption for this question...?

Also why are we even talking about other methods..nothing in the argument suggests that we need to bring other methods into the argument...i atleast feel so...

Thanks a lot again for ur detailed reply.It surely helped...

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use &nbs [#permalink] 17 Sep 2018, 06:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In response to drought conditions, the city of Valhalla banned the use

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


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®.