It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 10:39

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Q. In accordance with their powers, many state authorities

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Q. In accordance with their powers, many state authorities [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2007, 09:20
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Q. In accordance with their powers, many state authorities are introducing flouridation of drinking water. This follows the conclusion of 10 years of research that the process ensures that children and adults receive the requird intake of flouride that will strengthen teeth. The maximum level has been set at one part per million. However, there are many who object, claiming that flouridation removes freedom of choice.

Which of the following will weaken the claim of the proponents of flouridation?

A. Flouridation over a certain prescribed level has been shown to lead to a general weakening of teeth.

B. There is no record of the long-term effects of drinking flouridated water.

C. The people to be affected by flouridation claim that they have not had sufficient opportunity to voice their views.

D. Flouridation is only one part of general dental health.

E. Water already contains natural flouride.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 352

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2007, 17:37
I would go with E.

A. Flouridation over a certain prescribed level has been shown to lead to a general weakening of teeth.

B. There is no record of the long-term effects of drinking flouridated water.
-> 10 years of research should be sufficient...

C. The people to be affected by flouridation claim that they have not had sufficient opportunity to voice their views.
-> A kind of restatement of those who object (last sentence)

D. Flouridation is only one part of general dental health.
-> irrelevant

E. Water already contains natural flouride.
-> Answer. If water already contains flouride, then why need flouridation? The maximum, not the minimum level of flouride required for strengthening teeth exists.

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 852

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2007, 02:18
I vote for A....while drinking water no one knows the prescribed limit so A weakens the argument.

Any thoughts??

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 506

Kudos [?]: 243 [0], given: 0

Location: Indonesia

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2007, 02:37
E from me

regards,

Amardeep

Kudos [?]: 243 [0], given: 0

24 Mar 2007, 02:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by