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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
14 Mar 2010, 16:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Paragraph:Over 2 billion people live in areas with inadequate sanitation, and more than 1 billion people lack access to clean water. With dirty water being a chief contributor to the proliferation of disease and, consequently, higher mortality rates, the global community feels a sense of urgency to solve the problem. In 2003, a world water forum in Kyoto, Japan, concluded that significant progress would necessitate increasing investments in water supply systems by more than $180 billion per year. It is clear, however, that the bleak situation will not be ameliorated simply by an increase in expenditure. Given the inadequacies of many water supply systems, substantial improvement will not likely occur without large-scale privatization of the water supply.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) oppose private funding. They argue that water is too crucial a commodity to be privatized; that it will make water too expensive for poor people to afford; and that private companies are primarily concerned with profits. The NGOs seem to overlook certain realities of existing water supply systems. About 95 percent of the world's water supply systems are publicly operated, but many of these systems are inefficiently run or even corrupt, often failing to properly maintain water lines or build new ones, particularly in slums and villages. The worldwide toll is staggering. Over five million people die annually due to illnesses resulting from poor-quality water. Most of them are children.
In contrast, many privately run water systems have been successful. Between 1991 and 1999, Argentina's local governments were given the option to privatize their water systems. Over this time period, the child mortality rate fell by 8 percent in privatized regions—a steep 24 percent in the poorest areas. The water systems in other countries have also benefited from privatization. Private water companies have provided excellent service in France for hundreds of years. In Chile, 95 percent of the population now has access to clean, affordable water. It is unrealistic to imagine that privatization will solve all of the problems of the world's water supply. Nonetheless, considering the failures of public suppliers, privatization could be the best solution.
-----
The author discusses the views of non-governmental organizations in the second paragraph primarily in order to
1. demonstrate how various groups perceive water as a crucial global commodity.
2. acknowledge the limited merits of these organizations' position.
3. provide an example of organized resistance to privatization of water supply systems.
4. undermine the credibility of organizations that oppose the privatization of water.
5. point out that the results these organizations fear from water privatization are already pervasive in publicly-operated water systems.
Can you tell me your reasoning for the answer especially the last two choices you narrowed it down too.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) oppose private funding. They argue that water is too crucial a commodity to be privatized; that it will make water too expensive for poor people to afford; and that private companies are primarily concerned with profits. The NGOs seem to overlook certain realities of existing water supply systems. About 95 percent of the world's water supply systems are publicly operated, but many of these systems are inefficiently run or even corrupt, often failing to properly maintain water lines or build new ones, particularly in slums and villages. The worldwide toll is staggering. Over five million people die annually due to illnesses resulting from poor-quality water. Most of them are children.
In contrast, many privately run water systems have been successful. Between 1991 and 1999, Argentina's local governments were given the option to privatize their water systems. Over this time period, the child mortality rate fell by 8 percent in privatized regions—a steep 24 percent in the poorest areas. The water systems in other countries have also benefited from privatization. Private water companies have provided excellent service in France for hundreds of years. In Chile, 95 percent of the population now has access to clean, affordable water. It is unrealistic to imagine that privatization will solve all of the problems of the world's water supply. Nonetheless, considering the failures of public suppliers, privatization could be the best solution.
-----
The author discusses the views of non-governmental organizations in the second paragraph primarily in order to
1. demonstrate how various groups perceive water as a crucial global commodity.
2. acknowledge the limited merits of these organizations' position.
3. provide an example of organized resistance to privatization of water supply systems.
4. undermine the credibility of organizations that oppose the privatization of water.
5. point out that the results these organizations fear from water privatization are already pervasive in publicly-operated water systems.
OA = 5
Can you tell me your reasoning for the answer especially the last two choices you narrowed it down too.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
15 Mar 2010, 14:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
I narrowed it down to C and E.
First, the eliminations I found easier:
(A) "various groups" could refer to the various NGOs, but the primary shared characteristic of the NGOs is an opposition to private funding.
(B) The 2nd paragraph is mostly a statement of the NGOs' position, followed by an attack on it. No acknowledgement of limited merits.
(D) "undermine the credibility" goes too far. The passage never suggests that the NGOs are lying, just that they "overlook certain realities."
So what was the appeal of C and E?
(C) NGOs oppose privatization of water supply systems, and after all, the word "organizations" is in their title.
(E) Paragraph 2 says that NGOs oppose water privatization, but points out that publicly-operated water systems are pretty bad already. This is nearly identical to (E).
Ultimately I had more doubts about (C), and (E) did a better job of summarizing the whole 2nd paragraph, which is how we'd contextualize the mention of NGOs.
Doubts about (C): Sure, NGOs may be organizations (serving other purposes), but do they really offer "organized resistance to privatization"? They may just oppose privatization in theory, but not really be mobilized in a meaningful way against it.
Doubts about (E), and why I dismissed them: The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph doesn't explicitly say that NGOs are worried about the results listed later in the paragraph: inefficiency, corruption, improper maintenance, failer to build new water lines, poor-quality water, and death. But it does say that NGOs "argue that water is too crucial a commodity to be privatized." I think all of those results fit under the umbrella of the word "crucial."
First, the eliminations I found easier:
(A) "various groups" could refer to the various NGOs, but the primary shared characteristic of the NGOs is an opposition to private funding.
(B) The 2nd paragraph is mostly a statement of the NGOs' position, followed by an attack on it. No acknowledgement of limited merits.
(D) "undermine the credibility" goes too far. The passage never suggests that the NGOs are lying, just that they "overlook certain realities."
So what was the appeal of C and E?
(C) NGOs oppose privatization of water supply systems, and after all, the word "organizations" is in their title.
(E) Paragraph 2 says that NGOs oppose water privatization, but points out that publicly-operated water systems are pretty bad already. This is nearly identical to (E).
Ultimately I had more doubts about (C), and (E) did a better job of summarizing the whole 2nd paragraph, which is how we'd contextualize the mention of NGOs.
Doubts about (C): Sure, NGOs may be organizations (serving other purposes), but do they really offer "organized resistance to privatization"? They may just oppose privatization in theory, but not really be mobilized in a meaningful way against it.
Doubts about (E), and why I dismissed them: The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph doesn't explicitly say that NGOs are worried about the results listed later in the paragraph: inefficiency, corruption, improper maintenance, failer to build new water lines, poor-quality water, and death. But it does say that NGOs "argue that water is too crucial a commodity to be privatized." I think all of those results fit under the umbrella of the word "crucial."
