In setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved.

The argument given concerning the reasonable way to set standards presupposes that

A. industry currently meets the standards that have been set by environmental authorities
B. there are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants
C. the only contaminants worth measuring are generated by industry
D. it is not costly to prevent large amounts of contaminants from entering the environment
E. minute amounts of some contaminants can be poisonous

OG V 2017 New Question(Book Question: 153)
_________________

Md. Abdur Rakib

Please Press +1 Kudos,If it helps
Sentence Correction-Collection of Ron Purewal's "elliptical construction/analogies" for SC Challenges

Dear AbdurRakib,

I'm happy to respond. This is a subtle and difficult question, a very good question.

First, let's consider the prompt. Suppose we are looking at some contaminant---call it X. We want to most of the X in, say, drinking water. A cleansing system that eliminates down to one part-per-thousand might leave some X at the order of parts-per-million (ppm). A more expensive system might detect and eliminate X down to 1 ppm might leave residue amounts at the order of a few parts-per-billion (ppb). You can imagine extending this process to parts-per-trillion, etc., all the time getting more and more expensive. The very best system might be so efficient that not one molecule of X is left, but it might cost $100 billion. The argument is saying: we don't necessarily need the most rigorous and most expensive system: we have to assess risk, because maybe one of the less rigorous systems would be perfectly fine.

To make the situation more clear, I will bring in a couple examples from my own knowledge. A chemical such as bleach or lye is toxic in high concentrations, but at the order of 1 part-per-thousand, it is 100% harmless. It would be complete overkill and total waste money to purifying drinking water of these chemicals beyond that level. By contrast, the neurotoxins, such as lead, are really bad: lead causes measurable neurological damage at 1 ppb, so the standards for lead are much much more stringent than they are for most other chemicals. This is outside knowledge, but it might help to give you a real world sense of the context of the problem.

OK, now let's look at the answers. What is assumed by the argument? This is essentially an assumption question. We can use the Negation Test.

A. industry currently meets the standards that have been set by environmental authorities
Not necessarily. The argument would still be valid even if industry were outdoing any standards that had been set. They may be overachieving, say, purifying down to less than 1 ppb when the official standard is 1 ppm, but it still would be unreasonable to require them to do the very best that current technology could do. We can negate this, and the argument is fine. This is not an assumption.

B. there are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants
Interesting. Suppose there were no ways to assess those risk. Suppose we had no idea whether 1 part-per-thousand or 1 ppm or 1 ppb would be safe: then would we have to use the highest possible standard, the most technologically advanced method of cleansing, regardless of the cost. This would shatter the argument. The argument depends on the fact that risk for different chemicals at different concentrations are already well known. This is a promising answer.

C. the only contaminants worth measuring are generated by industry
Some contaminate might occur naturally, or some might come from household processes or from vehicle exhaust. This could be (and is) completely false, and it doesn't change the requirement on industry. This is not an assumption.

D. it is not costly to prevent large amounts of contaminants from entering the environment
Negate this. Suppose it were quite expensive to prevent large amounts of contaminants from entering the environment. What does this mean for the argument? It's unclear. Suppose it costs an industry $1 million to remove 90% of item X. What would it cost to use the best technology, to eliminate the X completely? Maybe just another million, or maybe $100 billion. It could still be unreasonable to require the most advanced technology, so the argument still works. This is not an assumption.

E. minute amounts of some contaminants can be poisonous
Negate this. Suppose minute amounts of anything are completely safe. Then, there would be no absolutely no reason to use the most advanced technology, to eliminate even microscopic quantities, because these microscopic quantities are perfectly safe. Negating this strengthens the argument, so this choice wildly fails the negation test. This is not an assumption.

The best answer is the OA, (B).

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep





Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Premise: 1. In setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve.
2. Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. Conclusion: 1. So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved.

Question type : Assumption
Prephase: Ans should refer to risks/ reasonable cost & standards. Particularly the phrase "taking into account all of the current and future risks involved", gives a hint that - is the elimination at a higher cost necessary.

Took me more than 2mins to solve, but the ans does not stand out. I used elimination method which eventually left Ans B. a second look at (B) made things fall in place.
B. there are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants - Allowing Contamination within specific limits.

AbdurRakib - Thanks for posting the OG 2017Questions - Please keep them coming .. +1Kudos given
Good luck
=========================================================================================
"If a street performer makes you stop walking, you owe him a buck"
"If this post helps you on your GMAT journey, drop a +1 Kudo "
_________________

Good luck
=========================================================================================
"If a street performer makes you stop walking, you owe him a buck"
"If this post helps you on your GMAT journey, drop a +1 Kudo "

"Thursdays with Ron - Consolidated Verbal Master List - Updated"

Conclusion: standards should be set by considering current and future risks involved...

A. industry currently meets the standards that have been set by environmental authorities::: If the industry meets or doesnot meet the requirement the above conclusion still holds
B. there are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants: If there are ways to account the risks then the conclusion hold and in case there are no ways then conclusion stands void
C. the only contaminants worth measuring are generated by industry: Here we are talking of Industry and thats written in the stem of the question but we cannot generalize that only industry generates the contaminant
D. it is not costly to prevent large amounts of contaminants from entering the environment: Prevention is costly or not is not discussed in Stem of the question. we are talking of risk analysis to be made while setting standards to remove the contaminants.
E. minute amounts of some contaminants can be poisonous: risk / Benefits of using a standard needs to be evaluated before implementing it, so effects need not to be considered.

It is generally misleading to consider the conclusion in isolation. Always relate the conclusion with the premise and then find out the missing link (i.e., the assumption).

When the conclusion is considered in isolation then E can be an assumption, but selecting E would be wrong because it does not fill the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Premise: Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved.

Conclusion: So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved.

Rather than filling in a gap between premise and conclusion, option E points at a weakness in the premise-conclusion link - the gist of the argument is that since the cost for detecting minute amounts is high, it is prudent to set standards as per risk (i.e. not to set very stringent standards unnecessarily). Option E is a weakener for this argument.

Although the answer choice 'B' is correct. I would request folks to share their thoughts on how to answer these kind of questions. Presupposes... I didn't get it at all.
_________________

2017-2018 MBA Deadlines

Threadmaster for B-school Discussions
Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig

In setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved.

The argument given concerning the reasonable way to set standards presupposes that

A. industry currently meets the standards that have been set by environmental authorities

B. there are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants

C. the only contaminants worth measuring are generated by industry

D. it is not costly to prevent large amounts of contaminants from entering the environment

E. minute amounts of some contaminants can be poisonous


Hi Folks, there are some questions with really twisted logics in OG 18. Request you to help me with above question, thanks!

Thanks for replying.

What do you make of " allowing different levels of contaminants"?

Nowhere, the arguments says anything about type or level of contaminants. Moreover, last line says environmental standards should be set by considering all present and future risks, it doesn't specify risks associated with contaminants. There may be a dozen other kinds of risks involved while setting environmental standards.

Please enlighten!

I arrived at the right answer by elimination. Here, none of the other options was close. The argument is recommending that it's ok to let amounts of contaminants in the environment, provided that risk-assessment allows us to do that.

So, the pre-supposition is that it is possible to correlate the risk levels with different levels of contaminants.