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.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
22 Sep 2014, 22:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
souvik101990
The main idea of the scientists is to remove excess carbon dioxide from atmosphere.This is achieved by establishing giant seaweed farms in oceans.Later, that seaweed will be burnt for fuel. A statement can weakened the argument if it is hurting the main idea i.e if it is not able to reduce the carbon dioxide.
A. Some areas of oceanin the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.
Incorrect. We do not care if some areas do not contain sufficient nutrients, there are many areas which can.The seaweed can still grow and reduce the co2.
B. When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.
CORRECT.As it is mentioned that the sea weed will be burned for fuel, The co2 it releases will be compared to amount it absorbed , so, in all the total CO2 will not reduce and be the same.
C. Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.
Incorrect. Beyond the scope of argument.
D. Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.
Incorrect.It doesn't matter how much is released, The idea is to remove excess CO2.We may think that billion ton might be big amount but the statement doesn't relate what explain what excess is ? It might be trillion ton.
E. Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.
Incorrect. Beyond the scope.We dont really care who does what with seaweed.
23 Sep 2014, 00:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
B for me too. If it releases an equivalent amount of CO2 when burned, the plan is of no use!
23 Sep 2014, 02:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
My choice is B, seems quite clear but will explain.
Read the paragraph slowly and understand it. You need to understand the argument then you should know right away we were going to weaken the last sentence in the argument. If we can change the amount of carbon dioxide the plants take in then the whole argument is weakened. Or in this case the amount they take is is sent back into the air the plants have done nothing to reduce carbon dioxide in the air.
A. its irrelevant we do not care about the southern hemisphere plan and simple!
B. Correct, if any carbon dioxide the plant takes in is put back into the air nothing has happened and we mine as well not have the plants!
C. Does not weaken the sentence people may or may not use them no direct result on the argument.
D. This actually strengthens the argument because it still reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the air 7-5=2 now, before its 7-0=7
E. Irrelevant again as we do not care about the amount of money the plants are making!
Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.
Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?
A. Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.
B. When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.
C. Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.
D. Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.
E. Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.
Read the paragraph slowly and understand it. You need to understand the argument then you should know right away we were going to weaken the last sentence in the argument. If we can change the amount of carbon dioxide the plants take in then the whole argument is weakened. Or in this case the amount they take is is sent back into the air the plants have done nothing to reduce carbon dioxide in the air.
A. its irrelevant we do not care about the southern hemisphere plan and simple!
B. Correct, if any carbon dioxide the plant takes in is put back into the air nothing has happened and we mine as well not have the plants!
C. Does not weaken the sentence people may or may not use them no direct result on the argument.
D. This actually strengthens the argument because it still reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the air 7-5=2 now, before its 7-0=7
E. Irrelevant again as we do not care about the amount of money the plants are making!
Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.
Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?
A. Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms.
B. When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.
C. Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.
D. Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.
E. Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel.
