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

 It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 06:43

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

Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 475
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty  [#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 24 Oct 2018, 21:58
3
7
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (02:01) correct 40% (02:10) wrong based on 443 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty percent less carbon dioxide in 2001 than in 2000. The decline in emissions was probably due almost exclusively to the March 2001 development of floating seaweed farms, the first step toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, in addition to being cost-efficient, was also widespread.

Scientists: That cannot be the cause. As you yourself clearly stated, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by twenty percent. Yet seaweed farms can only absorb ten percent of Alberville factories' emissions.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that the scientists present to the mayor's explanation?

(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville.

(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000.

(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville.

(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions.

(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source.

Source: GMAT Hacks - Q of the D - 090313

Originally posted by avohden on 03 Oct 2013, 07:13.
Last edited by Bunuel on 24 Oct 2018, 21:58, edited 3 times in total.
Manager
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 146
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty  [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Oct 2013, 10:29
2
Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty percent less carbon dioxide in 2001 than in 2000.
The decline in emissions was probably due almost exclusively to the March 2001 development of floating seaweed
farms, the first step toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, in addition to being cost-efficient, was also

Scientists: That cannot be the cause. As you yourself clearly stated, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by
twenty percent. Yet seaweed farms can only absorb ten percent of Alberville factories' emissions.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that the scientists present
to the mayor's explanation?

(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville. Irrelevant to the reduction of emission.
(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000. This tends to have no relevance on the scientists' argument.
(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville. Does not prove how the emission was reduced by 20%
(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions. Are we concerned about cost efficiency.
(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source. Correct, this option provides support to the mayor's argument and hence weakens the scientists' argument

Clear E,
Explanation:

The scientist counters the claim of the mayor by presenting factual data that seaweed's can only absorb 10 per cent of city's factories' emissions.

Pre-thinking: You can't debate the factual data, so to weaken's the scientists' claim you must somehow prove that the mayor's argument holds.

Option E does this by providing us with additional information that even after the seaweed's die, they can be used as a low emission fuel, which reduces the emission levels on a whole.
_________________
--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.
Senior Manager
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 475
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Oct 2013, 22:31
1
Official Explanation
Answer: E The scientists' argument contains a slight scope shift. The mayor argues that the seaweed farms are responsible "almost exclusively" for a decline in emissions. The scientists reply that seaweed farms "can only absorb" half the amount that the mayor attributes to them. But what if seaweed farms had some other benefit besides simply absorbing emissions? The mayor doesn't claim that the twenty percent reduction is due simply to absorption. To weaken the argument, expose and contradict the assumption that absorption is the only way for seaweed farms to reduce emissions. Choice (E) is correct--if seaweed plants can be used as a low-emissions fuel source, they do in fact have more benefit than their emissions absorption.

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 399
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Re: Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Oct 2018, 17:36
Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty percent less carbon dioxide in 2001 than in 2000.
The decline in emissions was probably due almost exclusively to the March 2001 development of floating seaweed
farms, the first step toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, in addition to being cost-efficient, was also

Scientists: That cannot be the cause. As you yourself clearly stated, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by
twenty percent. Yet seaweed farms can only absorb ten percent of Alberville factories' emissions.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that the scientists present
to the mayor's explanation?

(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville.
(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000.
(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville.
(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions.
(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source.
-------

I do not like E answer. (We can do a lot of overthinking and find it ok)
But it is the only one that somehow related.
Re: Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty   [#permalink] 24 Oct 2018, 17:36
Display posts from previous: Sort by