Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high

Question

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high rates of respiratory ailments in Loganville to airborne pollutants released in the manufacture of plywood. In response, the city government imposed strict regulations on emissions from our plant, which we have followed at great cost to our production capacity. But after an initial dip, the rate of respiratory ailments rose to new levels, so the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

MartyMurray · Answer

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high rates of respiratory ailments in Loganville to airborne pollutants released in the manufacture of plywood. In response, the city government imposed strict regulations on emissions from our plant, which we have followed at great cost to our production capacity. But after an initial dip, the rate of respiratory ailments rose to new levels, so the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

If anything, this strengthens the case for the conclusion by suggesting that respiratory ailments are caused by something other than airborne pollutants.

Eliminate.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

This makes no difference. Installing equipment to increase capacity without increasing emissions would not result in an increase in emissions or in the rate of ailments.

Eliminate.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

This makes no difference since it doesn't indicate anything about whether the emissions in those other towns cause ailments.

Eliminate.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

This choice is interesting.

The reasoning of the argument is basically that, since the rate of respiratory ailments increased after Woodco began following the regulations, and presumably reduced the quantity of pollutants released by the plant, pollution from the plant was never the cause of the ailments.

However, a new plywood plant opened after the regulations were implemented. So, so it could be that emissions from that plywood plant have caused the increase in ailments.

In that case, even though Woodco's plant itself may no longer be causing ailments, it could still be the case that, in general, pollution from plywood manufacturing does.

That fact weakens the case for the conclusion that "the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant" because it indicates that the following could have happened:

Woodo plywood manufacturing pollution was making people sick. Then, Woodco started following the regulations, and the rate of ailments dipped. Then, the new plywood plant started up, and started causing ailments again.

So, this choice weakens the argument by indicating that plywood manufacturing pollution could have been the problem all along, first as caused by Woodco and now as caused by the new plant.

Keep.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

This doesn't connect emissions to ailments. So, it doesn't affect the case for the conclusion.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   D

iamjayysingh · Answer

WHT??? We have to weaken the argument not strengthen it, argument was that the high rates was not becuz of the pollution from his factory.

SecretFlight · Answer

The manufactures argument is that they're not responsible as mentioned in the conclusion by using the word "our". On that basis shouldn't d also be eliminated??.

None of the options in the question are legit. I agree with the reasoning with the rest off the options but option a.so doesn't work.

In fact we might even be able to make option e work since more clinics means people can be diagnosed and hence the reported numbers will increase showing a rise in the number of cases

guddo · Answer

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high rates of respiratory ailments in Loganville to airborne pollutants released in the manufacture of plywood. In response, the city government imposed strict regulations on emissions from our plant, which we have followed at great cost to our production capacity. But after an initial dip, the rate of respiratory ailments rose to new levels, so the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant.
 
 Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

The manufacturer argues that because respiratory ailments rose again after Woodco reduced emissions, Woodco’s pollution was never the cause.  The weak point  is that another source of similar pollution may have appeared after Woodco’s emissions were reduced. That would explain the initial dip and later rise without clearing Woodco of earlier responsibility.

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

This gives another possible cause of respiratory ailments, so it does not weaken Woodco’s argument.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

This does not weaken the argument. It says Woodco increased production without increasing emissions.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

This is irrelevant. The issue is respiratory ailments in Loganville and pollution from the Loganville plant.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

This is correct. If another plywood plant opened nearby after Woodco’s emissions were restricted, then the later rise in respiratory ailments could have been caused by pollution from that new plant. That means the initial dip may still have been caused by reducing Woodco’s emissions, so Woodco’s conclusion is not justified.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

This might affect detection or treatment, but it does not directly show that Woodco’s pollution was not responsible before or that another pollution source caused the later rise.

Answer: (D)

titashmandal123 · Answer

Is this a genuine OG question?. We have to weaken the argument and not strengthen it. Why is B wrong ???

WildSnow · Answer

Conclusion is:  high rate was  NEVER  a result of pollution from  OUR  plant.

Note the word NEVER & OUR. Option (D) lays this out beautifully, suggesting that Woodco was responsible SOMETIME.

Read the lines below from Marty's explanation: Woodo plywood manufacturing pollution was making people sick. Then, Woodco started following the regulations, and the rate of ailments dipped. Then, the new plywood plant started up, and started causing ailments again.

WildSnow · Answer

Why do you think (B) is correct? The only issue that matters is whether Woodco is responsible for the pollution, and (B) does not seem to provide any evidence or indication one way or the other on that end.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  titashmandal123  yes its a genuine OG ques from OG 26 27. The explanation has been given by experts and do check them for option choice analysis.

Gmat860sanskar · Answer

Stimulus : Ten years ago, a study showed a connection between high respiratory cases and air pollution released by plywood manufacturers. ---- > Because of that, the government imposed strict new rules to curtail the air pollution. -----> However, cases increased after an initial small dip. ---> Because of this, the Woodco Plywood Manufacturer claims that they were never responsible for the pollution.

Question :  We need to weaken the Woodco Plywood Manufacturer's claim that they were never responsible for the pollution.

Now let's deep dive into the options :

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

This is the opposite of what we want. This actually strengthens the manufacturer's argument by providing an alternative cause for the ailments.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

titashmandal123 
 
  This option states that Woodco's emissions did  not  increase. If their pollution didn't go up, this cannot explain the new spike in respiratory cases. Therefore, it does nothing to prove Woodco was responsible for the original ailments.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

What happens at plants in other towns is completely irrelevant. We only care about what is causing the respiratory ailments in Loganville.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

SecretFlight

I think there is some confusion in understanding the conclusion, The manufacturer claims that because cases increased again after the regulations, they must never have been responsible in the first place. However, this option provides an alternate explanation for the new increase: a different plant opened 9 years ago. This shows Woodco  was  likely responsible for the original cases (which explains why cases dipped when Woodco cut emissions), but the new competitor caused the subsequent rise.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

Ok, I see what this option is trying to do, but our argument is about cases and pollution. It could be a weakening option if it said there are more respiratory  detecting  centers instead of treating centers (which could explain a false rise in reported cases). As it stands, it is irrelevant.

Adit_ · Answer

Feels highly dubious.

Lets say I manufacture plywood.
I use some technique X (no mention of how plywood is generated, maybe one group had better technique than the other)
I produce a certain amount of Y pollutants. Those Y pollutants went down after a while and I claim that it was not "my" fault.

The fact that conclusion mentioned "our" plant gives sufficient reason to believe that plywood manufacturer each possibly could have their own technique and diff amount of pollutants released.
Option D IMO does not harm the conclusion in any way.
Both the competitors may be releasing diff amounts of the pollutants entirely.
So the conclusion that the high rate was NEVER a result of pollution still stands.

On the other hand I am not sure why nobody mentioned E.
If D is indeed true with all the little assumptions made, option E can be right too.

There is reason to believe that if there are more facilities for treating a given ailment, naturally more cases are being recorded in hospitals for the given ailment. With that more people come to Loganville for getting their treatment done. Since they arrive at that location to get their treatment done, naturally there is also reason to believe that the number of respiratory ailments have gone up, or the rate has gone up.
So the whole conclusion that because they had a dip, they are safe is shattered here. Their factories could still be of an issue.

IMO option E looks great.

Looking for expert opinions and a healthy discussion.
 Bunuel  what is your view on this?

PS: I do see a point for option D as well, but it does involve assumptions. I personally feel E to be stronger than D.

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards