Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 29 Mar 2017, 08:11

# LIVE NOW:

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 52
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [5] , given: 0

Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2008, 13:03
5
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

84% (02:10) correct 16% (01:22) wrong based on 2094 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2575
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 436 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2008, 13:09
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.

can anybody help me out in CR. m finding this section difficult.

-thanx

D. The argument assumes that both cannot be used at the same time. If this were true, then Northern Power would not be doing everything it can, thus the argument falls apart.
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 792
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 160 [6] , given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2008, 18:48
6
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Conclusion: By installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants.

Jolt down in mind some of the assumptions on which argument based:
1. [Assumption can serve to fill in a logic gap.] Scrubbers will reduce the harmful emissions
2. [Assumption can serve to fill in a logic gap.] Clean fuel reduce the harmful emissions
3. [Assumption can establish the feasibility of the premises of the argument] Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than the cleaner-burning fuel.
4. [Assumption can eliminate alternate path to the same end] There is no better alternative way for the Northern Power to reduce the most of the harmful emissions than to install scrubbers.

Now, let check the answer choices that closely matches with our mental argument assumption dump (I mean our list)

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers. [This argument is not about Northern Power’s expensive/inexpensive mode installing scrubbers – Eliminate it]
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others. [This argument is not about list of scrubbers choices that Northern Power has – Eliminate it]
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants. [Contradicts the conclusion – Eliminate it]
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone. [This sounds close to our mental assumption 4 – hold it]
(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution. [Definitely not interested in Northern Power’s day to day business – Eliminate it]

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 84
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2008, 19:09
1
KUDOS
D
doing both would be much better than one alone.
Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 86
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2008, 06:50
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
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.

can anybody help me out in CR. m finding this section difficult.

-thanx

D. The argument assumes that both cannot be used at the same time. If this were true, then Northern Power would not be doing everything it can, thus the argument falls apart.
+1

Agree with D here. Just a bit detailed explanation...

It is really a good technique to use negating test on assumptions questions. Ask yourself what if the proposed assumption is not true..? Apply to each answer choice until you find the one that make the argument fall apart. Here is an example of how it works
e.g. Let's take the answer choice "D":
Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone. But if this is not true, and Harmful emissions can be reduced more by using both methods together, then the conclusion does not make much sense any more: "Therefore, by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants",.. because "they will be doing the most.." by using both methods together.. So they have to assume that using both methods will not be any better than just installing scrubbers.

This logic works every time for assumption questions.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1923
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1066 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2008, 21:28
1
KUDOS
hanumayamma wrote:
Conclusion: By installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants.

Jolt down in mind some of the assumptions on which argument based:
1. [Assumption can serve to fill in a logic gap.] Scrubbers will reduce the harmful emissions
2. [Assumption can serve to fill in a logic gap.] Clean fuel reduce the harmful emissions
3. [Assumption can establish the feasibility of the premises of the argument] Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than the cleaner-burning fuel.
4. [Assumption can eliminate alternate path to the same end] There is no better alternative way for the Northern Power to reduce the most of the harmful emissions than to install scrubbers.

Now, let check the answer choices that closely matches with our mental argument assumption dump (I mean our list)

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers. [This argument is not about Northern Power’s expensive/inexpensive mode installing scrubbers – Eliminate it]
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others. [This argument is not about list of scrubbers choices that Northern Power has – Eliminate it]
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants. [Contradicts the conclusion – Eliminate it]
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone. [This sounds close to our mental assumption 4 – hold it]
(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution. [Definitely not interested in Northern Power’s day to day business – Eliminate it]

Assumption should be A

and A still belongs to "Assumption can eliminate alternate path to the same end." A means that Cost is not the factor for one to choose installation of scrubber, rather than switching to cleaner -burning fuel.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 293
Location: SFO Bay Area
Schools: Berkeley Haas
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2008, 22:12
D it is.

Argument says that "installing scrubbers will do the most they can do"...i.e it better not be less than the two methods put together...
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------
When you come to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on.

Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 441
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 41

Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2009, 21:28
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.
_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.

Last edited by doe007 on 17 Apr 2013, 20:18, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 123
Location: France
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2009, 21:41
D) Colclusion states that "by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the [color=#FF0000]most that...." So there is a clear assumption that these 2 methods can't be used together to reduce more[/color]
_________________
Manager
Status: Applying
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 154
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2009, 22:34
IMO ...E

Since the assumption fits in nicely with what the company can do to reduce the emissions.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 298
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2009, 18:28
D.

two are not in conflict so why not both..good Q.
Intern
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2009, 14:44
D

The most it could do would be to install both scrubbers and use cleaner burning fuel.
However, they are assuming Northern Power can't use both so in that case they would be doing the most they can do to decrease harmful emissions
Manager
Status: Mission GMAT
Joined: 20 Apr 2011
Posts: 96
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 39

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2011, 04:39
Scrubbers and fuel are two methods to reduce harm emissions. Scrubbers are more effective than fuel.
Hence by installing scrubbers company is doing the most it can do to reduce emissions.

The argument clearly assumes that xyz is the best way to reduce emissions. Assuming that no other way is better. That is combined effect is not better.
Choices are
A -- \$ aspect is out of scope
B -- might be true and strengthen the concl, but not necessary for it to follow. Even if all scrubbers are equally effective, the combined effect can be more effective. Also, the more effective scrubbers combined with fuel can be still more effective.
C -- Out of scope. If anything it weakens the conclusion
D -- Correct choice as mentioned earlier
E -- Out of scope. The argument does not deal with whether the cumulative emissions of NP are low or high.
_________________

Hope this post helps!
Your kudos will let me know.

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 464
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: Q V0
GPA: 3.23
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 451 [0], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2013, 01:08
Often, the argument jumps to a conclusion without filling in the gap. In this argument, the author states that Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions better than the other approach. Then, it jumps to conclude that, Scrubbers will be doing the MOST of what can be done...

Obviously the assumption is there is no better alternative than Scrubbers...

(A) the cost is irrelevant...
(B) different scrubbers... fine, fine but that this doesn't show why the author jumps to conclusion and believe that the most that can be done is the Scrubbers
(C) their commitment is irrelevant...
(D) if combination of the two methods produce far better results than Scrubbers alone then the conclusion will be invalid.. hence, this needs to be assumed...
(E) the sources of emissions is irrelevant...

_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 225
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 46

Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2013, 04:23
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\sqrt{}
Manager
Joined: 27 Jan 2013
Posts: 230
GMAT 1: 780 Q49 V51
Followers: 48

Kudos [?]: 215 [1] , given: 32

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

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2013, 05:20
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Hi,

This is an assumption that you can come up with before going to answer choices. Having a good grip on the "story" of the questions is critical. Sometimes it helps to paraphrase: There's a power company. They can have ONLY two options for creating cleaner emissions: clean fuel or filters. Filters do more than clean fuel. Therefore for max clean they should choose filters.

We were never told that the choices are mutually exclusive. Maybe we can choose both. It is important NOT to add anything or lose anything from the story. It is very easy to add the idea of exclusivity because in our normal lives we make many decisions based on the idea that you can't have both (you choose one movie, one apartment, one entree...) but on the GMAT options are not mutually exclusive unless we are told so.

Happy Studies,

HG.
_________________

"It is a curious property of research activity that after the problem has been solved the solution seems obvious. This is true not only for those who have not previously been acquainted with the problem, but also for those who have worked over it for years." -Dr. Edwin Land

GMAT vs GRE Comparison

If you found my post useful KUDOS are much appreciated.

Here is the first set along with some strategies for approaching this work: http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-economist-reading-comprehension-challenge-151479.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 452
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 70

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

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 20:21
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1152
Location: United States
Followers: 266

Kudos [?]: 2966 [1] , given: 123

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

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 22:15
1
KUDOS
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

Premise: Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than cleaner-burning fuels will
Conclusion: by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions

Assumption: Scrubbers and cleaner-burning working together cannot reduce more than each method working alone.
Negation technique: If both methods working together reduces more than each method working alone. The conclusion is broken.

D is correct.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 190
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 72

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

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2014, 07:45
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

Conclusion: by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants
premise: Scrubbers will reduce harmfull emission more than cleaner-burning fuels will.

Assumption: 1) Cleaner fuel will not reduce the harmful emission as Scrubbers
2) Installing scrubbers is the only way for Northern power to reduce the emission and they dont have any other way to reduce.

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers. - Out of scope - Expensive is not in play now
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others. - Out of scope - Various kind of scrubbers is not an issue
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants. - Breaks the conclusion directly
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone. - seems to be more in align with our assumption 2. Negating this choice breaks the conclusion.
(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution - Irrelevant to our conclusion

Press kudos if this helped.

Regards,
Swami.
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2013
Posts: 34
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 3

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

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2014, 00:08
rrsnathan wrote:
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

Conclusion: by installing scrubbers, Northern Power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants
premise: Scrubbers will reduce harmfull emission more than cleaner-burning fuels will.

Assumption: 1) Cleaner fuel will not reduce the harmful emission as Scrubbers
2) Installing scrubbers is the only way for Northern power to reduce the emission and they dont have any other way to reduce.

(A)Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers. - Out of scope - Expensive is not in play now
(B)Northern Power can choose from among various Kinds of scrubbers, some of which are more effective than others. - Out of scope - Various kind of scrubbers is not an issue
(C)Northern Power is not necessarily committed to reducing harmful emissions from its plants. - Breaks the conclusion directly
(D)Harmful emissions from Northern Power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone. - seems to be more in align with our assumption 2. Negating this choice breaks the conclusion.
(E)Aside from harmful emissions from the smokestacks of its plants, the activities of Northern Power do not cause significant air pollution - Irrelevant to our conclusion

Press kudos if this helped.

Regards,
Swami.

Ur assumption 1 is not an assumption. It is a fact stated in the question.
Re: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to   [#permalink] 12 Oct 2014, 00:08

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 A proposed ordinance requires the installation 4 16 Oct 2013, 07:11
14 Installing a thermostat in a greenhouse helps achieve 5 18 Aug 2013, 08:06
3 Since Arlene Hodges was installed as president of 6 11 Jul 2013, 01:13
Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to 0 06 Mar 2013, 05:20
Traffic safety experts predict that the installation of 14 02 Sep 2011, 09:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by