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

It is currently 15 Dec 2019, 20:04

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 291
Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2019, 10:56
2
13
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:20) correct 52% (02:41) wrong based on 446 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers' reasoning?

A. If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects.

B. There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard.

C. Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused.

D. Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects.

E. Samples of City X's drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today's most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found.


CR61021.01

_________________
Kudos
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Jun 2019
Posts: 27
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2019, 05:57
The reasoning part is this - "drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades". Statement tat supports this is omly D. Rest are all irrlevant.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 09 May 2018
Posts: 77
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2019, 06:33
1
Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.

Reasoning of the Scientists - The drugs would have already been present in the water for decades and they have never had any discernible health effects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers' reasoning?

A. If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects. - This statement doesn't strengthen the point of scientists that the drugs were present for decades in the water.

B. There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard. - Not related to reasoning.
C. Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused. - This weakens the reasoning.

D. Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects. - This is strengthening the reasoning clearly.

E. Samples of City X's drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today's most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found. - This weakens the reasoning

In all the Strengthen questions, if we can find what we have to strengthen, the answer finding becomes very easy.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Mar 2019
Posts: 27
GMAT 1: 640 Q45 V32
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2019, 03:56
the question stem is quite tricky in the right answer. However, when I take this into close analyzation, I noticed that it is indeed the right choice. By saying that the same drug was found in the neighborhood public drinking water decades ago and that it shows no discernible health issues, it strengthens the conclusion of the argument by showing evidence in neighborhood country.
Takeaway: always be open-minded for critical reasoning, since I often exclude the choice when seeing that it talks about another thing than the one we are discussing in the argument.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 291
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2019, 01:48
gmatt1476 wrote:
Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers' reasoning?

A. If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects.

B. There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard.

C. Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused.

D. Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects.

E. Samples of City X's drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today's most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found.


CR61021.01


Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

This question asks us to find the answer choice that would most strengthen this argument.

Researchers in City X reason that because the levels of certain pharmaceutical drugs that have been found in the city's drinking water are so low—detectable only by use of the most recent technology—these drugs may well have been in the drinking water for decades. Furthermore, the researchers point out that there have been no discernible health effects from the use of the drugs. They conclude that the drugs are probably not a significant concern.

As it stands, the argument is quite weak. The researchers conclude only that the drugs may have . . . been present for decades. This leaves open the possibility that they were not present for that long. If they were not, then obviously the current lack of discernible health effects does not imply that there will be no such effects in the future.

We can strengthen the argument if we find solid information indicating that these drugs can be present in a city's drinking water at the levels found in City X's drinking water, or higher, for a long time without presenting any ill health effects.

A. This choice does not strengthen the argument. Note that there have not been any discernible health effects from drinking the water; this fact is compatible with this statement as well as with the drug being a significant public health hazard. Perhaps the reason there have been no discernible health effects is that the drugs have only recently entered the water supply.

B. This choice does not strengthen the argument's reasoning. Until we can establish that there is no significant health hazard—what the argument sets out to prove—we cannot know whether there is a need to remove these drugs from the drinking water.

C. This claim weakens the argument. It introduces the possibility that there may have been adverse health effects resulting from these drugs, yet the researchers have not been able to discern these effects, or have not been able to determine that they were effects of the drugs.

D. Correct. Researchers several decades ago, using less sensitive technology, were able to detect the same drugs in another town's public drinking water. This implies that the drug levels in that town were higher than those recently detected in City X's drinking water. Given that there have been no discernible health effects in this previous case, this lends support to the researchers' reasoning regarding City X.

E. This claim weakens the argument; it suggests that the drugs are a relatively new presence in the water. Therefore, the effects of these drugs might not have had time to arise.

The correct answer is D.
_________________
Kudos
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Posts: 155
Location: Austria
GPA: 3.9
CAT Tests
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2019, 13:39
"However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades"

How can D) be a proper strengthener here? The whole argument is build upon the fact that the levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology.

Although the second part of D) is strengthening the argument, isn't it a bit weird to build the argument around the assertion that "basically we've only found those levels because technology advanced" and then strengthen it with "anyway, they also found it with old technology ..."

Weird reasoning for me
_________________
Let's get some
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Oct 2019
Posts: 2
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2019, 19:39
Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.


Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers' reasoning?
To strengthen the conclusion I looked for a premise with new info so:

A. If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects. Did not hate this one at first, but didn't love it. Kept aside for now

B. There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard. Besides the point, we are trying to strengthen the fact that drugs were already there and everyone is okay

C. Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused. This weakens the conclusion

D. Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects. Presents new info that ties the presence of drugs in the water without health effects on the people

E. Samples of City X's drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today's most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found. Ok. Cool. Does nothing to support that the drugs in the water didn't hurt people
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9876
Location: Pune, India
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2019, 21:07
gmatt1476 wrote:
Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers' reasoning?

A. If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects.

B. There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard.

C. Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused.

D. Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects.

E. Samples of City X's drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today's most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found.


CR61021.01


Low levels of drugs found in water.
Drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology,
so drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.

Conclusion - Drugs in the water are not a significant public health hazard.

We need to strengthen the reasoning.

A. If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects.

Incorrect. The reverse would have helped us - if there are no discernible health effects, then they will not be a public health hazard.
We know that there are no discernible health effects and based on that we are concluding that they are not a public health hazard. In "if A, then B", A implies B so it would have helped us.
As given, this if statement doesn't help us.

B. There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard.

Whether we need to remove them or not is not a point of discussion at all.

C. Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused.

This doesn't help our argument. We need to say that drugs are not a public health hazard. This says that we may not discern adverse health effects even if it is a public health hazard. So this opens the possibility that it could be a public health hazard. Against our conclusion.

D. Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects.

This says that same drugs had no discernible health effects elsewhere too. So it strengthens the argument that the drugs are not public health hazard. Answer.

E. Samples of City X's drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today's most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found.

Against our reasoning. We are saying that this level of drugs may have been present for a long time but there have been no discernible health effects. If decades ago, these drugs were not there in water, it is possible that the drugs in water are a recent addition and negative health effects are yet to show. So the drugs could be a public health hazard.

Answer (D)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma   [#permalink] 14 Nov 2019, 21:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharma

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne