Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
05 Feb 2013, 21:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
40% (02:47) correct
60%
(02:42)
wrong
based on 1531
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quiet” regions, so called by geologists because such regions are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults. Since no minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000-year period, it follows that of all potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, those that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Geologically quiet regions are the least dangerous regions in which to build nuclear reactors.
(B) For any potential nuclear reactor site, the likelihood of being struck by an earthquake is the primary determinant of site safety.
(C) In a geologically quiet region, every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault.
(D) Nuclear reactors that are located in geologically quiet regions are built to withstand at least one but not necessarily more than one earthquake of minor to moderate force.
(E) Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions produce earthquakes at least once in 100,000 years.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Geologically quiet regions are the least dangerous regions in which to build nuclear reactors.
(B) For any potential nuclear reactor site, the likelihood of being struck by an earthquake is the primary determinant of site safety.
(C) In a geologically quiet region, every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault.
(D) Nuclear reactors that are located in geologically quiet regions are built to withstand at least one but not necessarily more than one earthquake of minor to moderate force.
(E) Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions produce earthquakes at least once in 100,000 years.
07 Feb 2013, 21:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
Legendaddy
I understand when people crib about RC and SC. But the truth is that CR is not hard to rule. All you need is some patience and correct guidance.
You need to find the assumption here. An assumption is a missing premise that is necessary for the conclusion to hold - again, it is necessary for the conclusion. Look for the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Of all potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, those that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory
Go on to the options now:
(A) Geologically quiet regions are the least dangerous regions in which to build nuclear reactors.
The conclusion categorically states: "Of all potential sites in such a region" i.e. it is only considering quiet regions. It is not comparing geologically quiet regions with other regions so this option is out of scope.
(B) For any potential nuclear reactor site, the likelihood of being struck by an earthquake is the primary determinant of site safety.
Again, the conclusion does not talk about 'site safety'. It only discusses the likelihood of an earthquake. So again out of scope.
(C) In a geologically quiet region, every potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault.
The conclusion says that of all potential sites in a quiet region, the safest (regarding earthquakes) is the one near a minor fault that has recently produced an earthquake. It does make sense in a way since a recent earthquake would have settled the plates and hence it is not very likely that another earthquake will happen anytime soon. But the question is - 'Is it necessary that there will be a minor fault near all the potential sites?' How about a site which has no faults and hence no chance of an earthquake? Hence, when we say, 'Build the plant near a minor fault which has seen an earthquake in the recent past,' we are assuming that there is no site which has no faults. We are assuming that every potential site has at least one minor fault. Answer (C)
(D) Nuclear reactors that are located in geologically quiet regions are built to withstand at least one but not necessarily more than one earthquake of minor to moderate force.
Again, it is out of scope since the conclusion does not talk about how many earthquakes the reactor can stand. It is only trying to find the site where chances of an earthquake are minimum.
(E) Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions produce earthquakes at least once in 100,000 years.
We don't need to assume this to make the conclusion true. 1 in a 100,000 is just the average. There needn't be 1 in every 100,000 yrs. The conclusion is only trying to find the most stable area to make the reactor. A fault that has experienced an earthquake recently is expected to be more stable that a site with a minor fault which hasn't experienced an earthquake lately.
General Discussion
Marcab
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Last visit: 22 Jan 2021
Posts: 850
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 221
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Simon '15 (M$)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
05 Feb 2013, 23:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
Legendaddy
This was good one.
The conclusion is ALL potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, those that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory..
Here negation or POE can be one's arsenal.
ABD are out of scope.
E is a restatement of the premise.
On negating C, C becomes: In a geologically quiet region, NOT ALL potential nuclear reactor site is near at least one minor fault. If this is true, then by no chance the conclusion can stand intact.
