Polychlorinated biphenyls are heavy, syrupy hydrocarbons that were fir

Please comment on the reasoning on Q3.

It can be inferred from the passage that the justification used for prohibiting individuals from consuming fish caught in contaminated sections of the Hudson River is that the individuals may thereby:

A. reduce the level of PCBs in their bodies.
Because of an affinity for fat, they have a marked tendency to accumulate in living organisms; increasing in concentration as they move up the food chain.
Furthermore, air along the river contains elevated concentrations of PCBs, and individuals living along the River show PCB residue in their bodies, paralleling the river's contamination.

Explanation:
B. avoid any further increase in the level of PCBs in their bodies.
Explanation: . Because of an affinity for fat, they have a marked tendency to accumulate in living organisms; increasing in concentration as they move up the food chain.
ie. Human is the last of the food chain, so it will not increase the level of PCB.

C. mitigate the accumulation of PCBs in their bodies.
Explanation: .
Because of an affinity for fat, they have a marked tendency to accumulate in living organisms; increasing in concentration as they move up the food chain.
Furthermore, air along the river contains elevated concentrations of PCBs, and individuals living along the River show PCB residue in their bodies, paralleling the river's contamination.
ie. PCB can be obtained from other sources, therefore, if human does not consume fish that is contaminated; the action will reduced the level of PCB in the body.

D. prevent cancer and developmental problems.
Does not explicitly mentioned that it will prevent cancer and developmental problems

E. cause a reduction in their health insurance premium
Not mentioned in the passage

Didn't really understand why the answer to Q.2 is A. The passage says that " The EPA has recommended that PCBs be removed from the river bottom by dredging, thus reducing contamination and POSSIBLY eventually permitting revitalization of commercial fishing". Clearly the commercial fishing revitalization isn't the main motive behind this.

Can someone help with q1? I could find support that refute 2 and 3 but what about 1?

Guess worked for A, overall all correct . What are the chances of seeing such long passages in actual GMAT?

Tx.

Hi, I have the same doubt. as well. Can anyone offer an explanation on this?

Someone please explain question no 1 in detail

I. heavier than water.
II. toxic to fish
III. readily biodegradable.

I: CORRECT and can be deduced from the statement that "sediments are settled down in the river"
II: Passage never stated that PCB is toxic to fishes; However, it is harmful to People if they will consume fish, which are present in PCB contaminated water.
III: PCB is not biodegradable, this is why it lasts for Years.

Hence; Option 1 is correct

Thanks = KUDOS

MagooshExpert please explain question no 2

B, C, and E are out because 'recommended actions' are not going to benefit them.

it is b/w A and D

acc. to passage: "The EPA has recommended that PCBs be removed from the river bottom by dredging, thus reducing contamination and possibly eventually permitting revitalization of commercial fishing

it surely tells that recommended actions are going to benefit commercial fishing interests; Hence Option A is Correct.

Thanks = KUDOS

Hi Bishal123456789,

Happy to help!

Here's the relevant part of the passage for question 2:



This part specifically tells us that the EPA's recommendation is specifically motivated by the revitalization of commercial fishing, so A is our answer

The rest of the passage goes on to describe the concerns of the corporation and local residents, which match the other answer choices, in contrast to the EPA's motivation.

I hope that helps!
-Carolyn

Topic and Scope - PCB contamination of the Hudson River and possible clean-up

Mapping the Passage
¶1 describes PCBs and what industries and products made use of them.
¶2 describes PCB toxicity, the ban on PCBs, and the problem that PCBs remain in the environment.
¶3 describes the historical context of chemical dumping and clean-up.
¶4 describes PCB pollution in the Hudson River.
¶5 notes that the fate of PCBs after dredging has received little attention.
¶6 describes competing views over clean-up: the EPA wants to dredge PCBs, while corporations and some citizens argue that this will do more harm than good.

Best Available Solution

1) A Roman Numeral inference question with little information to go on in the
question. RN I appears in three out of the four answer choices, so evaluate it first.
What in the passage would provide information about the relative weights of PCBs
and water? If the solution to removing PCBs from the river is to dredge, then PCBs
must be at the bottom of the river, which means that they must be heavier than
water. Eliminate (D). There‘s no suggestion that PCBs are toxic to fish; just the
opposite! If ―fish consumption remains the most potent route of PCB exposure,‖
that must mean that the fish are relatively healthy (at least until eaten). RN III
goes against the main thrust of the passage: if PCBs were biodegradable, there
would be no need to dredge at all. (A) must be correct.

(A): The correct answer
(B): Opposite. As described above.
(C): Opposite. As above.
(D): Opposite. As above.
(E): Opposite. As above.

2) A nastily-worded question. Be sure to take the time to figure out exactly what it‘s
asking. Differences between the EPA and the other two groups are mentioned in
¶6. The question asks how the EPA differs on the basis of its recommendation for
clean-up. The EPA bases its recommendation on the belief that dredging will reduce
contamination and may revitalize commercial fishing. Predict where the difference
isn’t: it‘s not on environmental concerns, because the company and the residents
also base their argument on environmental benefit. Neither the company nor
residents are associated with commercial fishing; this is therefore a valid
difference. (A) fits.[/b]

(A): The correct answer
(B): Opposite. Presumably reduced contamination will further residential interests, which the residents clearly also believe since some oppose dredging on the belief that it will increase contamination.
(C): Opposite. Even if the EPA is concerned with the environment as a whole, for which there‘s no basis in the passage, it‘s arguable that the residents have a similar environmental concern.
(D): Opposite. This is a reason that residents who oppose dredging, not the EPA, cite.
(E): Incorrect as described above

3) Why are individuals prohibited from eating fish from contaminated areas of the
Hudson? Review the mechanism described in ¶2: PCBs increase in concentration as
they move up the food chain, and so eating fish from contaminated areas would
increase the PCB concentration in the person eating the fish. It can be inferred that
the fish ban is in place to prevent this from happening; (C) fits.
(A): Distortion. Though not eating the fish may reduce the rate of increase in PCB concentration, there‘s no indication that simply avoiding contaminated fish will reduce PCB concentration overall.
(B): Distortion. As above, though not eating the fish will reduce the rate of increase, this doesn‘t mean that it will eliminate the increase altogether;
there are still other possible sources of contamination.
(C): The correct answer
(D): Distortion. Simply reducing the rate of increase won‘t necessarily eliminate all risk factors for cancer and developmental problems, which could come from any number of sources, non-fish-borne PCBs included.
(E): Health insurance premium outside the scope of the passage[/b]

Why in Q1, the option regarding PCBs being toxic to fish is not considered? Essentially humans are prohibited from consuming fish, that is enough to infer that the fishes are being affected by PCBs hence they are toxic to fish. I think it should be I & II both. Please can someone throw more light on this.

Hi mk96,

[quote]II. toxic to fish [quote]
II is incorrect, as what's mentioned in the passage is: "Today, because of PCB contamination, human consumption of fish caught in the most affected areas of the Hudson River is prohibited". Now this means, that fish contain the PCB's, which is why the consumption of these fishes is prohibited as PCB's are harmful to humans. We cannot infer if PCB's are toxic to fish or not.


Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

What could be the difficulty level of the passage? Got 2/3 under 8 mins

The difficulty level should be the following, in my opinion.

Question #1: 650-700
Question #2: 700
Question #3: 700+

Overall: 700-Level.