GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Jul 2018, 09:46

### 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

# QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5135
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 01:38
3
4
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:09) correct 38% (01:32) wrong based on 489 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 176: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.

(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1847
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 01:40
6
2
A conference was held to address environmental threats to the North Sea. Even if you don't know the meaning of the word "effluent", from the context you should be able to infer that it is some type of waste that could potentially harm the sea.

The countries participating in the conference favor uniform controls (or restrictions) on the quality of those effluents. The issue is that they aren't sure which sources of effluents actually cause environmental damage. As a result, they might end up restricting sources that DON'T actually cause any environmental damage. Such a restriction would be excessive, since it would involve controlling substances that are not actually threats to the sea. If they could somehow only control the HARMFUL effluents, then the controls could not be considered excessively restrictive.

With that in mind, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, it must be shown that...

Quote:
(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay

We aren't concerned with the timing of the controls. Rather, we care about the controls' being excessively restrictive. The schedule of the controls has nothing to do with how restrictive they are, so (A) can be eliminated.

Quote:
(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage

As described above, controls on substances that are not actually harmful would be considered excessive. If we can show that any substance subject to the controls actually CAN cause environmental damage, then we would show that we are not restricting harmless substances. This would eliminate the concern about excessively restrictive controls, so choice (B) looks pretty good.

Quote:
(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents

The countries generating the largest quantities of effluents may NOT favor the controls. So what? Whether those countries like the controls doesn't tell us whether the controls restrict harmless substances. Thus, regardless of whether this statement is true, the controls may or may not be excessively restrictive. Eliminate (C).

Quote:
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

The word "all" should be a red flag. What if only MOST or SOME of a given pollutant actually reaches the North Sea? Would controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not. Furthermore, if an effluent is known to be an environmental threat, it might make sense to implement controls to ensure it doesn't harm the North Sea in the future. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible

Even if the present damage is irreversible, we would still want to limit FURTHER damage by implementing the controls. Controls on harmful substances would not be excessively restrictive even if they only succeed in keeping the damage at the current level. Choice (E) is thus irrelevant and can be eliminated.

_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 456
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 12 Dec 2017, 04:36
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.

If we can show that the controls are not excessively restrictive then we can avoid the blame of being called 'excessively restrictive controls'. It is possible only if the effluents that will be covered in the control actually does harm to environment.
B
_________________

------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"
Hit Kudus if this has helped you get closer to your goal, and also to assist others save time. Tq

Originally posted by TaN1213 on 12 Dec 2017, 03:20.
Last edited by TaN1213 on 12 Dec 2017, 04:36, edited 1 time in total.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1052
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 04:07
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.

(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay
Delay in the application of control is out of scope

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage
Correct. If the substabce doesn't cause any harm then excersising control is not good, invalidating the argument

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
Countries are out of scope

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
If the pollutabt can reach after a few days/years then it will be an issue.

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible
If the damage is reversible then the whole point of controlling the affluents is pointless
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!

Preparing for RC my way

My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant
2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
3. LSAT RC compilation
4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
5. QOTD RC (Carcass)
6. Challange OG RC
7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 85
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 04:19
i think It is B. It is saying saying that all the effluents can cause damage and that gives a solid reason to avoid restrictive control.D says all the pollutants reach North sea but it fails to mention why all the effluents (not mentioned in the argument that all effluents are pollutants) are to be controlled.
Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Posts: 11
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 04:34
Correction...it shud be B...D states "all of the pollutant" which is baseless cause even if half is reaching its enough to cause damage

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 68
Location: India
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 06:22
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.

(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay - Irrelevent

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage - Correct

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents - Irrelevent

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
- does not matter if 'all' of the pollutant reaches --even some can cause damage (depending on how much was released)

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible - Irrelevent
Intern
Joined: 21 Nov 2013
Posts: 8
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 06:59
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.

(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay - Irrelevent

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage - Correct

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents - Irrelevent

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
- does not matter if 'all' of the pollutant reaches --even some can cause damage (depending on how much was released)

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible - Irrelevent

I agree. My answer is B as well. Well experience explained by s8kadian.

Posted from my mobile device
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 286
QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2018, 07:28
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

The word "all" should be a red flag. What if only MOST or SOME of a given pollutant actually reaches the North Sea? Would controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not. Furthermore, if an effluent is known to be an environmental threat, it might make sense to implement controls to ensure it doesn't harm the North Sea in the future. Eliminate (D).

Hi GMATNinja , GMATNinjaTwo
Would you please confirm my interpretation?
GMATNinja wrote:
The word "all" should be a red flag. What if only MOST or SOME of a given pollutant actually reaches the North Sea?

Do you mean you negate choice D?
because some of a given pollutant actually reaches to the North Sea, So does it equally say some of a given pollutant actually does NOT reaches the North Sea?

Then consider that whether argument fall apart if negate D,
as you mentioned above:
GMATNinja wrote:
Would controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not.

Did i miss something?

I think it is hard for me to consider whether controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not.
Rather, it will be easier for me to onsider whether controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it does reach the North Sea? -- the answer is NOT exceed, because loss control, or not strict control, some polutant reaches the orth Sea,
so negative D will loss control, the opposite of exceed control,
Then D is correct,
Here is my reasoning, I know i am incorrect, but i don't know where, please point out.

Have a nice day
>_~
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 286
QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2018, 01:18
zoezhuyan wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

The word "all" should be a red flag. What if only MOST or SOME of a given pollutant actually reaches the North Sea? Would controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not. Furthermore, if an effluent is known to be an environmental threat, it might make sense to implement controls to ensure it doesn't harm the North Sea in the future. Eliminate (D).

Hi GMATNinja , GMATNinjaTwo
Would you please confirm my interpretation?
GMATNinja wrote:
The word "all" should be a red flag. What if only MOST or SOME of a given pollutant actually reaches the North Sea?

Do you mean you negate choice D?
because some of a given pollutant actually reaches to the North Sea, So does it equally say some of a given pollutant actually does NOT reaches the North Sea?

Then consider that whether argument fall apart if negate D,
as you mentioned above:
GMATNinja wrote:
Would controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not.

Did i miss something?

I think it is hard for me to consider whether controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not.
Rather, it will be easier for me to onsider whether controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it does reach the North Sea? -- the answer is NOT exceed, because loss control, or not strict control, some polutant reaches the orth Sea,
so negative D will loss control, the opposite of exceed control,
Then D is correct,
Here is my reasoning, I know i am incorrect, but i don't know where, please point out.

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi GMATNinja , GMATNinjaTwo

Have a nice day
>_~
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1847
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2018, 10:50
zoezhuyan wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present

The word "all" should be a red flag. What if only MOST or SOME of a given pollutant actually reaches the North Sea? Would controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not. Furthermore, if an effluent is known to be an environmental threat, it might make sense to implement controls to ensure it doesn't harm the North Sea in the future. Eliminate (D).

Hi GMATNinja , GMATNinjaTwo
Would you please confirm my interpretation?
GMATNinja wrote:
The word "all" should be a red flag. What if only MOST or SOME of a given pollutant actually reaches the North Sea?

Do you mean you negate choice D?
because some of a given pollutant actually reaches to the North Sea, So does it equally say some of a given pollutant actually does NOT reaches the North Sea?

Then consider that whether argument fall apart if negate D,
as you mentioned above:
GMATNinja wrote:
Would controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not.

Did i miss something?

I think it is hard for me to consider whether controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it doesn't reach the North Sea? Of course not.
Rather, it will be easier for me to onsider whether controlling that substance be excessively restrictive just because SOME of it does reach the North Sea? -- the answer is NOT exceed, because loss control, or not strict control, some polutant reaches the orth Sea,
so negative D will loss control, the opposite of exceed control,
Then D is correct,
Here is my reasoning, I know i am incorrect, but i don't know where, please point out.

Have a nice day
>_~

zoezhuyan, please understand that we experts receive numerous requests for help each day, and, while we do our best to respond in a timely manner, we cannot get to everyone -- so I apologize for not being able to answer absolutely every question you've asked lately. Check out this thoughtful post by mikemcgarry for another perspective.

As for this question, I'm afraid I don't quite understand your reasoning, but let me try to help anyway....

Let's say that a factory generates a waste product called Chemical X. Chemical X is very bad for the environment. If (D) were the answer, then any controls on Chemical X would be excessively restricted UNLESS 100% of the Chemical X actually reaches the North Sea.

In that case, what if 90% of the Chemical X reaches the North Sea? If we go with choice (D), then controlling Chemical X would be "excessively restrictive." But that doesn't make sense... if 90% of Chemical X reaches the North Sea and that chemical is very bad for the environment, then controlling that substance would be reasonable, not excessively restrictive.

In other words, if (D) were the answer, we could have the following logic:

• 99% of the Chemical X produced by the factory reaches the North Sea.
• We try to implement controls on Chemical X.
• The factory says, "Well, SOME of the Chemical X (i.e. the 1%) doesn't actually reach the North Sea, so the controls are excessive!"

We do NOT need to show that ALL of the waste actually reaches the North Sea. As long as an amount significant enough to harm the environment reaches the North Sea, then the controls are justifiable.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Intern
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Posts: 29
WE: Account Management (Other)
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2018, 12:37
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 176: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.

Prethinking:

>50% countries are in favour of uniform control over quality of all the effluents even if it’s not a threat to environment. Question stem mentions “ in order to avoid”, so we need to see what could weaken the argument and not all effluents are controlled.

(A) any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay— even after a delay, they will be controlled. incorrect

(B) any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage— it’d be unfair to control any substance that is not even a threat. Bingo!!

(C) the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents—opposite

(D) all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present—irrelevant

(E) environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible.—irrelevant
Intern
Joined: 28 Nov 2017
Posts: 21
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.16
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2018, 04:41
I am unable to fully comprehend the language of option B. I get confused by following 2 meanings:
a) Any substance which has to be made, if subjected to controls, will cause damage
OR
b) All substances to be made that are subject to controls, cause damage.
Please grammatically comprehend the option B
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 284
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2018, 10:25
1
gmatacer40 wrote:
I am unable to fully comprehend the language of option B. I get confused by following 2 meanings:
a) Any substance which has to be made, if subjected to controls, will cause damage
OR
b) All substances to be made that are subject to controls, cause damage.
Please grammatically comprehend the option B

I think you are on the right track with your second explanation. Let's say that controls are placed on 10 different substances. According to choice (B), we must be able to show that all ten can actually cause environmental damage.

If we want to add a substance to that list, we must be able to show that it can actually cause environmental damage. In other words, ANY substance that we want to add to the list must pass that test.

I hope that helps!
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 286
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2018, 04:39
GMATNinja wrote:
As for this question, I'm afraid I don't quite understand your reasoning, but let me try to help anyway....

Let's say that a factory generates a waste product called Chemical X. Chemical X is very bad for the environment. If (D) were the answer, then any controls on Chemical X would be excessively restricted UNLESS 100% of the Chemical X actually reaches the North Sea.

In that case, what if 90% of the Chemical X reaches the North Sea? If we go with choice (D), then controlling Chemical X would be "excessively restrictive." But that doesn't make sense... if 90% of Chemical X reaches the North Sea and that chemical is very bad for the environment, then controlling that substance would be reasonable, not excessively restrictive.

In other words, if (D) were the answer, we could have the following logic:

• 99% of the Chemical X produced by the factory reaches the North Sea.
• We try to implement controls on Chemical X.
• The factory says, "Well, SOME of the Chemical X (i.e. the 1%) doesn't actually reach the North Sea, so the controls are excessive!"

We do NOT need to show that ALL of the waste actually reaches the North Sea. As long as an amount significant enough to harm the environment reaches the North Sea, then the controls are justifiable.

I hope that helps!

Thanks so much GMATNinja

I think i confused recessive and resonable

Have a nice day
>_~
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 332
Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2018, 17:49
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, ----------->There are some environmental threats to the North Sea
most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, ------> reduce these threats by controls on the quality of effluents
whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. ------------> No need to map specific environmental damage to a particular source of effluent.

Required:-
What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that _______.

Pre-thinking: Are there some reasons other than quality of effluents having an enviornmental threat to the North sea?

Elimination of wrong and selection of correct answer choice:-
Option (B) gives that other reason - any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage!
_________________

"Please hit +1 Kudos if you like this post"

_________________
Manish

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"

Re: QOTD: At a recent conference on environmental threats &nbs [#permalink] 02 Jun 2018, 17:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.