It is currently 12 Dec 2017, 17:48

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to

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

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2014
Posts: 33

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 4

Premium Member
Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2015, 10:08
There is a causality in the conclusion. Installing Scrubber will do the most. Nothing else will do the same is the assumption or eliminating the case where any factor else can do the most is another way of framing the assumption. Choice D just does that.

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 4

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 22

Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Apr 2016, 06:03
I fail to understand how can we come up with the assumption that we have to choose one option either scrubbers or cleaner-fuel method? What if we can use both to get the maximum result? This is not explicitly mentioned or negated in the argument.

Therefore, I fail to understand how come option D is negating that combined is less effective. According to the argument, we only know that Scrubbing is more effective than other but it doesn't states that if combined together will not deliver good result or vice versa that scrubbing is even better than the combined result.

Yes - I agree other options are not relevant but option D is also confusing.

Can someone please clarify - what am I missing in my understanding?

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 22

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Jun 2015
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 309

Schools: Sloan '19
Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2016, 03:21
Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to cleaner-burning fuel are the two methods available to Northern Power for reducing harmful emissions from its plants. – A background information.
Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than cleaner-burning fuels will. – A background information.

Therefore, by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants. - Conclusion derived from the two informations provided above.

So are all options evaluated ? What are the assumptions for this conclusion?

In how many ways we can select the solution to reduce harmful emissions from its plants -
1) by installing scrubbers in smokestacks
2) by switching to cleaner-burning fuel – rejected as mentioned in the premise.
3) by using both of them – no information provided in the argument.
Hence, if the conclusion is that option1 is the best then it can be assumed that option3 is not better than option1.
Assumption – there is no other better option.

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers. – not discussed in the argument.
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others. - – beyond the discussion .
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants. – no information to suggest so – not discussed in the argument.
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone. – Correct
(E) Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution. - not discussed in the argument.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 309

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 257

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 9

Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2016, 03:58
vermatanya wrote:
Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to cleaner-burning fuel are the two methods available to Northern Power for reducing harmful emissions from its plants. Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than cleaner-burning fuels will. Therefore, by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers.
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others.
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants.
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone.
(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution


Argument say that by installing scrubbers, company would be doing the most that it can do.

(A) This is quite close. HOLD.
(B) This is not a relevant point. OUT
(C) The argument mentions that Northern Power is taking steps to reduce emissions. So this is not an assumption. OUT
(D) This is the precise assumption that invalidates the conclusion. Why cant Northern Power use both options? If we negate this argument - Suppose both methods can be used, and still Northern Power is not using them, then it is trying to economize and is NOT doing its utmost. This is a better choice than A.
(E)Issue is of harmful emission, so this is an irrelevant point.

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 9

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 645

Kudos [?]: 389 [0], given: 36

GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2016, 11:40
THE CORRECT ANSWER IS D
We have to find the ASSUMPTION on which the argument rest


Let us first break the argument into Premise and Conclusion.
Premise 1) Scrubber and clean fuel will reduce harmful gases
Premise 2) Scrubber will reduce more harmful gases
Premise 3)- ASSUMTIONS (which is a unstated premise but which is a must for reaching conclusion.. we have to find it)
Conclusion)-Northern Power will do its maximum effort by installing only Scrubber to reduce harmful gases

DO U SEE THE GAP IN REASONING
Scrubbers are not the maximum effort to reduce harmful gas. It can be further reduces by using clean fuels. (see premise 1)
SO the argument is assuming that maximum reduction can be achieved by only scrubbers but it forgets that clean fuel will further reduce the harmful gases

SO the correct answer will be one will tell us that NORTHERN POWER has assumed that both scrubber and fuel cannot both reduce harmful gases even more than scrubber alone.
WHAT OPTIONS SAYS THAT:-

(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone.

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS D



vermatanya wrote:
Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to cleaner-burning fuel are the two methods available to Northern Power for reducing harmful emissions from its plants. Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than cleaner-burning fuels will. Therefore, by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers.
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others.
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants.
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone.
(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Kudos [?]: 389 [0], given: 36

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2013
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 16

Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2016, 01:24
Question Statement - Though Process
1) 2 options are provided , then why is the author stressing on using the Scrubber method ONLY
2) Maybe both of them together are not that useful ?
3) Maybe Scrubber is way more better than the other method ?
options
(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers. --Out Of Scope
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others.Out Of Scope
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants.Out Of Scope
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone. --hmm..sothing that we thought , lets keep it aside
(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollutionOut Of Scope
Narrowed down to Option D

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 16

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 39

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 28

Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2016, 17:58
I am confused between D & E. There can be certain other activities which may cause major air pollution , then NorthernPower needs to act upon those activities too.

So in given argument we are assuming that there is one source of pollution i.e Emission .

Please help me out .
_________________

Consider giving Kudos, if you find worth it :) !!

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 28

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 53

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 22

Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 00:24
Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to cleaner-burning fuel are the two methods available to Northern Power for reducing harmful emissions from its plants. Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than cleaner-burning fuels will. Therefore, by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants.
Scrubber > Cleaner burning fuel

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers.
We ain't talking about the cost of both the products.

(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others.
Again we have to compare scrubbers with cleaner burning fuel and not to other scrubbers.

(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants.
We are again not concerned about the intension. And this assumption is actually going against the conclusion.

(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone.
They assumed that both cannot be together and that is why kept only scrubber in their plant.

(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution
A tempting answer. But we need to see the diffrence. Premise talks about pollution control from its plants and this answer option is concerned about the totality of the pollution.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 22

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Apr 2013
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 9

CAT Tests
Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2017, 05:17
why cant option E the answer?

This is how I thought - assumption -There is significant emission from the smokestacks of the plant and since scrubbers helps to reduce emission from these stacks, installing these scrubbers will help to reduce emission more than changing the fuel.

Can someone explain where am i going wrong?

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 9

Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to   [#permalink] 30 Oct 2017, 05:17

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.