Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con : Critical Reasoning (CR)

P

ArtVandaley

Senior Manager

Joined: 10 Sep 2013

Posts: 294

Own Kudos [?]: 398 [4]

Given Kudos: 120

Location: India

Schools: Darden '23 Sloan '22

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38

GPA: 4

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

23 Sep 2019, 08:22

1

Kudos

3

Bookmarks

E gives a valid reason to doubt the proposed plan of action. If the water level drop was due to draught, and if draught has recently ended, we need not worry about water level further.

L

Skywalker18

Verbal Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Dec 2013

Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone

Posts: 2101

Own Kudos [?]: 8809 [9]

Given Kudos: 171

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

GPA: 3.2

WE:Information Technology (Consulting)

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

23 Sep 2019, 12:14

6

Kudos

3

Bookmarks

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Core-To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries.
Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.- incorrect, but what about the general health of the delta, high saline levels are likely to negative impact on it. Also, we do not ONLY talk about drinking water but also about preserving the delta.
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.- incorrect, water level NEED NOT be the ONLY factor that affects salinity in the delta, but ending current diversion still might have a significant impact
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.- incorrect, how the water levels are controlled is not relevant. If it at all, it seems that it would be feasible to implement our plan
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.- irrelevant, this might mean that more people have inconvenience because of diminished water supplies
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended. - Correct, the primary cause of recent drop in water level is a prolonged drought(Cause). Since the drought has ended, we can expect the water level in delta to rise

Answer E

P

gmatt1476

Senior Manager

Joined: 04 Sep 2017

Posts: 318

Own Kudos [?]: 19736 [8]

Given Kudos: 50

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

29 Sep 2019, 02:40

3

Kudos

5

Bookmarks

gmatt1476 wrote:

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.

CR79731.01

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

This question requires us to find a potential weakness of the plan suggested. That is, the question requires us to find a reason that ending all current diversions from the Searle River's upstream tributaries might not be a good idea.

Note that the plan is designed to keep the delta's water level from dropping further. While there are costs to executing this plan, the letter claims that these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

The letter begins with a discussion of how the dropping water levels in the delta will lead to saltier and less potable water, but it is unclear what role this plays in the letter's argument. That is, we do not know whether this is the primary reason for the concern about the delta's water levels. Given the information provided, it could be just one of many concerns. Given the letter says that the costs are necessary to preserve the delta, it appears to be just one among multiple concerns.

A. If the sole reason for wanting to keep the delta's water level from dropping further is to ensure that the river can provide drinking water, then this answer choice might suggest a weakness in the plan. That is, the plan itself would be unnecessary. Note, however, that the main reason given for the plan is to preserve the delta, not to ensure drinkability of the water. Bearing this in mind, there may still be reasons to carry out the plan even if the claim made in this answer choice is true.

B. The plan does not necessarily need to be able to solve the problem of increased salinity on its own. Even if it cannot, the plan may be an important part of solving the problem. Furthermore, there may be other reasons besides salinity for implementing the plan. This choice, therefore, does not give us a good reason to believe that the plan is not necessary.

C. This choice gives us a potential explanation of how the upstream water has been diverted. It does not, however, present a weakness in the proposed plan.

D. This choice suggests a reason that there may be costs to implementing the proposed plan; most clearly, the growing population will need water that it could get from the river. Nevertheless, the letter indicates that these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

E. Correct. This gives us reason to think that the water levels may actually fix themselves. That is, the level will not continue to decline even if the plan is not carried out. The letter indicates that the specific reason to carry out the plan is to prevent the water level from dropping any further. So if the plan turned out to be unnecessary for preventing such a drop in water level, then the costs of the plan would have made the plan itself undesirable.

The correct answer is E.

L

dcummins

VP

Joined: 14 Feb 2017

Posts: 1115

Own Kudos [?]: 2164 [8]

Given Kudos: 368

Location: Australia

Concentration: Technology, Strategy

Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$) Melbourne (A$) AGSM (A$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Anderson '23 (WL) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)

GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26

GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23 Verified score

GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33 Verified score

GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36 Verified score

GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35

GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41 Verified score

WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)

Send PM

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

08 Oct 2019, 20:15

5

Kudos

3

Bookmarks

Plan: End all upstream tributary diversions to keep Delta's waters from dropping any further
effect: neighbouring utilities likely to suffer, but this is necessary to preserve delta
prem: if water continues to drop, rising sea will make water saltier and less suitable for drinking
prem2: 40% of water from upstream tributaries is sent to neighbouring areas

A - Phaseshift - different conclusion here.
B - Doesn't exactly weaken, but causes question
C - Okay? General fact explaining how diversions are controlled
D - need to spin too much of a story here - maybe 40% diversion was way too much? Maybe they are at capacity?
E - Weakens the plan - highlights an alternate cause for the drop, showing that the water levels shouldn't continue to drop

B

Nerdy01

Intern

Joined: 27 Nov 2019

Posts: 18

Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]

Given Kudos: 241

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

02 Feb 2020, 07:24

I have a question. Is it a weakness of the plan, if there is an alternative way to resolve the issue (doing nothing)?

Posted from my mobile device

S

OhMy

Intern

Joined: 11 Feb 2018

Status:resting for now

Posts: 47

Own Kudos [?]: 103 [0]

Given Kudos: 126

Location: Germany

Concentration: Technology, Strategy

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

27 Mar 2020, 14:51

gmatt1476 wrote:

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.

CR79731.01

Demn, i got the main point slightly wrong.
To me it sounded as if the author's main concern is the salt level.
Since he mentions in the first sentence that low water level increases salt, and continues to say we should prevent any lower water level in order to save the delta -> i thought his main concern is the salt.
Then, A and B) shift into focus as more strong contenders of course, and E shifts slightly out of focus.

How do you guys arrive at the right main point/line of reasoning? Isn't that a little too subtle?

B

Gauravvinod92

Intern

Joined: 02 Jun 2020

Posts: 37

Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]

Given Kudos: 169

Location: India

Send PM

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

22 Jul 2020, 01:58

TheGMATCo wrote:

The Story

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. - We’re presented with a conditional in the first statement. It is not given yet whether the water level in the delta will continue to drop. However, if it continues to drop, the water will become saltier and less suitable for drinking through the rising sea level.

Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. - “Upstream tributaries” indicates these are water bodies that feed into the delta. However, 40% of the water from these tributaries does not reach the delta and is diverted to neighboring areas.

To keep the delta’s water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. - To prevent the water level in the delta from dropping further, the author suggests that they should end all ‘current diversions’ from the upstream tributaries (This would include the 40% water that is diverted to neighboring areas).

Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta. - While the neighboring areas will likely experience higher costs for water, and diminished water supplies, these costs are necessary to preserve the delta. (So if the delta water becomes saltier and less suitable from drinking,the delta is not preserved.)

Gist: If the water levels in the delta continue to drop, the water will become saltier and less drinkable. In order to prevent the level from dropping further (goal), we should end all diversions from the upstream tributaries (plan) which include diversions to neighboring areas. While there will likely be inconveniences caused, these steps are necessary to preserve the delta.

The Gap

“To keep the delta’s water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries.” The author assumes that if all current diversions are not ended, the delta’s water level will continue dropping.

The Goal

Anything that attacks the assumption we have discussed above will get the job done. There could be other assumptions and other ways to weaken the suggestion as well.

The Evaluation

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
Incorrect. The letter states that if the water level continues to drop the water will become saltier AND less suitable for drinking. While drinkability is one concern, there very well might be other issues related to saltier water in the delta. So, even if certain equipment helps the water to become drinkable, the delta might still not be preserved. For example, what if the delta water is used for irrigation and if the water gets saltier? the delta water would no longer be usable for irrigation. And the delta might still not be considered preserved.

B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
Incorrect. Do we care whether water level is only one factor i.e. that there are other factors that affect salinity in the delta? Does that indicate that we should not end diversions from the upstream tributaries? As long as the water level is a significant reason for salinity in the delta, the plan still makes sense. This option does not indicate any weakness in the suggested plan.

Let’s consider an example. Say a doctor suggests to a patient that she should stop consuming fatty foods to control her rising cholesterol level. Does it make sense for the patient to refute the suggestion by saying that since consuming fatty foods is only one factor that affects cholesterol levels, she need not stop consuming such foods?

C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
Incorrect. How water levels of the upstream tributaries are controlled is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
Incorrect. If, as the option suggests, the diversion of water into the neighboring areas led to an increase in the population in the areas, ending diversions might lead to a decrease in the population. Ending diversions would, at least, inconvenience the people and have a cost implication for them. However, there is no relationship between population fluctuations and the water level of the delta.

E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.
Correct. The drop in the water level was mainly due to a drought. The drought has now ended. So, perhaps the water levels in the delta will start to rise again, or at least the levels will likely not continue to drop. We now question the need to implement the suggested plan to achieve the desired goal of increasing the delta water level in the first place.

If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

I had cut off E when i answered..because of presence of "much" in the option. What if water level still drops? i went with B.

As we have other reasons which affect the salinity of water so it is not required to cut off the tributaries flow. We must find the other reasons.
Or just because D is better than B in the given options. B could have been the answer.

Regards,
Gaurav

G

Shrey08

Manager

Joined: 04 Mar 2020

Posts: 134

Own Kudos [?]: 129 [0]

Given Kudos: 304

Location: India

GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V30

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

02 Aug 2020, 05:49

gmatt1476 wrote:

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.

CR79731.01

I don't get it. How does E indicate a weakness of the plan?

The plan is to increase the cost and reduce the quantity of water supply to preserve the water in the river, right ?
Now if the recent drop in the delta's water level was due to drought, which has now ended, the plan can still be in place and the water will be preserved.

IMO, the plan might not have worked if the neighboring population had increased since the plan was drafted.
Say, there were 100 families using the water from delta and keeping this population in mind the authorities come up with a plan to increase the cost and reduce the water supply. Now if the population grows to 150 families the increase in cost might not help as much as could have if the population remained 100.

This is what D says. Not a very strong answer but I think it's better than E.

VeritasKarishma , GMATNinja, chetan2u, generis please share you thoughts.

B

thecoronafever

Intern

Joined: 20 Mar 2020

Posts: 48

Own Kudos [?]: 8 [1]

Given Kudos: 177

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

26 Sep 2020, 22:18

1

Kudos

I found this question to be very much flawed.
At first, the question says "serious potential weakness" of the suggested plan. The stimulus is not about what caused the drop in levels. So, with option (E), even if draught caused the drop, implementing the plan might just level up the river faster. But it's implementation won't mean that the plan will not achieve the goal. I think use of "serious potential weakness" in question means that there should be drawback of the plan that should be listed in the choices. And that's why I didn't like this question at all.

VeritasKarishma can you please help here?

B

shivambindal123

Intern

Joined: 13 Jun 2020

Posts: 3

Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]

Given Kudos: 6

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

26 Sep 2020, 22:49

gmatt1476 wrote:

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.
CR79731.01

Explanation:

Conclusion - To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries

Since the argument is tightly knitted, we need to find an alternate explanation for the decline in water level other than the diversion of upstream tributaries to weaken the conclusion.

A. Great, but does not answer why the water level declined - Eliminate
B. Again, salinity is not the conclusion - Eliminate
C. Irrelevant - Eliminate
D. Irrelevant - Eliminate
E. This is an alternate explanation of why the water level declined. Hence, the answer.- Correct

@experts: please correct if my explanation is incorrect. Thanks!

B

TAMU14

Intern

Joined: 10 Oct 2019

Posts: 1

Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]

Given Kudos: 13

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

27 Sep 2020, 09:16

thecoronafever wrote:

I found this question to be very much flawed.
At first, the question says "serious potential weakness" of the suggested plan. The stimulus is not about what caused the drop in levels. So, with option (E), even if draught caused the drop, implementing the plan might just level up the river faster. But it's implementation won't mean that the plan will not achieve the goal. I think use of "serious potential weakness" in question means that there should be drawback of the plan that should be listed in the choices. And that's why I didn't like this question at all.

After almost a year of lurking, i'm posting for the first time to say I agree with you.

I'm not sure how a change to the underlying circumstance that initially required the plan indicates that the plan had a "serious potential weakness". To me, the plan no longer being required does not mean that the plan had a weakness.

I ended up choosing B - I didn't love the choice but I reasoned that if there were more factors at play impacting the salinity of the water, the 'magnitude' of the negative impact to the neighboring areas could conceivably be greater than the benefit of water being barely less salty for the target community. (ie. the plan would screw other areas over and lead to virtually no increase in drinkable water, which is the problem the plan is trying to solve in the first place).

L

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Posts: 14822

Own Kudos [?]: 64916 [2]

Given Kudos: 426

Location: Pune, India

Send PM

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

28 Sep 2020, 22:35

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

thecoronafever wrote:

I found this question to be very much flawed.
At first, the question says "serious potential weakness" of the suggested plan. The stimulus is not about what caused the drop in levels. So, with option (E), even if draught caused the drop, implementing the plan might just level up the river faster. But it's implementation won't mean that the plan will not achieve the goal. I think use of "serious potential weakness" in question means that there should be drawback of the plan that should be listed in the choices. And that's why I didn't like this question at all.

VeritasKarishma can you please help here?

thecoronafever - I understand your concern and for what its worth, I believe it is not unfounded. But here are some points which make the answer correct.

- You have 4 clearly wrong options.
- The reason for the drop is relevant. Say the delta gets just 10% of its water from the tributaries and rest from rain. The option tells us that most of the drop is because of draught. Then possibly, only rain can make up for the drop. Even if the diversions of tributaries are ended, it may bring in only 2-3% extra water which may not stop the water level from dropping. Hence, it is potential weakness of the plan. If the draught is now ending, the main source of water would kick into action and the problem may just go away.

B

ra96

Intern

Joined: 30 May 2020

Posts: 7

Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]

Given Kudos: 2

Send PM

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

14 Mar 2021, 14:54

I agree, I would pick E if the question said something along the lines of "Which of the following would make the suggested course of action unnecessary", I don't know how you could say this is "a weakness of the plan"

L

mSKR

VP

Joined: 14 Aug 2019

Posts: 1378

Own Kudos [?]: 846 [0]

Given Kudos: 381

Location: Hong Kong

Concentration: Strategy, Marketing

Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22

GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29

GPA: 3.81

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

14 Mar 2021, 18:51

ra96 wrote:

I agree, I would pick E if the question said something along the lines of "Which of the following would make the suggested course of action unnecessary", I don't know how you could say this is "a weakness of the plan"

Quote:

E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.

Current situation: Water level is dropping .We must do something
Weakness Option: No need, because water was dropping due to drought. But we don't need to do anything . Why? Because drought has recently ended. No more drought no more water drop. Just wait for some days and situation would be better.

Now you understand why is it weakened? I hope it helps:)

B

celan99

Intern

Joined: 25 Feb 2021

Posts: 36

Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]

Given Kudos: 1

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

14 Mar 2021, 19:48

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. Conclusion : To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

P : 40% of the water from upstream is diverted
Object : Keep the delta's water level from dropping
How? : end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries

Potential answers :

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
-> Out of "how?", it talks about other solution but is not related to original option
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
-> We are not interested in factors that cause rise in salinity level
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
-> Correct, if the upstream water levels are controlled by systems of dams, the most important point we have to deal with would be this dam, not diversions.
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
-> OOS, we are not intersted in population.
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.
-> OOS, we are not intersted in the drop reason but only in how to keep the water level from dropping.

L

mSKR

VP

Joined: 14 Aug 2019

Posts: 1378

Own Kudos [?]: 846 [0]

Given Kudos: 381

Location: Hong Kong

Concentration: Strategy, Marketing

Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22

GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29

GPA: 3.81

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

14 Mar 2021, 20:06

celan99 wrote:

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta continues to drop, the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking. Currently, 40 percent of the water from upstream tributaries is diverted to neighboring areas. Conclusion : To keep the delta's water level from dropping any further, we should end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. Neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies, but these costs are necessary to preserve the delta.

Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action?

P : 40% of the water from upstream is diverted
Object : Keep the delta's water level from dropping
How? : end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries

Potential answers :

A. Desalination equipment would allow water from the delta to be used for drinking even it if became saltier.
-> Out of "how?", it talks about other solution but is not related to original option
B. Water level is only one factor that affects salinity in the delta.
-> We are not interested in factors that cause rise in salinity level
C. The upstream tributaries' water levels are controlled by systems of dams and reservoirs.
-> Correct, if the upstream water levels are controlled by systems of dams, the most important point we have to deal with would be this dam, not diversions.
D. Neighboring areas have grown in population since the water was first diverted from upstream tributaries.
-> OOS, we are not intersted in population.
E. Much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended.
-> OOS, we are not intersted in the drop reason but only in how to keep the water level from dropping.

This is your first post. Congrats for the beginning.

unfortunately your answer and explanations are not right. It's better to check the answer and other explanations before posting. Thus you can learn more from the community.

Some posts for beginners in the link:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-beginne ... l#p2209623

G

Basshead

Director

Joined: 09 Jan 2020

Posts: 966

Own Kudos [?]: 223 [0]

Given Kudos: 434

Location: United States

Send PM

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

07 Oct 2021, 05:59

The suggested plan of action is to end all current diversions from the upstream tributaries. By enacting this plan, we're told neighboring water utilities are likely to see higher costs and diminished water supplies. However, this is presumably trade-off that is required to preserve the delta. Let's go through the choices:

A - This doesn't weaken the suggested plan of action. Instead, this choice offers a workaround -- but we're looking for a direct weakness of the suggested plan.

B - While we're told the rising sea level will make the water saltier and less suitable for drinking, we need to find the weakness to the question at hand: Which of the following would, if true, indicate a serious potential weakness of the suggested plan of action? Knowing that the water level is the only one factor that affects salinity in the delta does not weaken the suggested plan of action.

C - We're not concerned with upstream tributaries' water levels -- we're concerned with the delta's water level. Out of scope.

D - We're not concerned with neighboring areas -- out of scope.

E - If much of the recent drop in the delta's water level can be attributed to a prolonged drought that has recently ended, then it's quite possible that the suggested plan of action is not necessary. Why carry out an action that isn't necessary? This is a serious potential weakness.

E is the answer.

gmatclubot

Re: Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con [#permalink]

07 Oct 2021, 05:59

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Letter to the editor: If the water level in the Searle River Delta con