It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 15:03

### 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

# Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years

Author Message
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 08:26
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

Since the passage of the stateâ€™s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

1. Which of following is an assumption made in the passage above?
(A) Most businesses in the state have obeyed the regulations embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(B) The economic decline of the state can be attributed, in part, to the effects of the Clean Air Act.
(C) The amount of air pollution in a given area is likely to be proportional to the number of businesses and workers active in that area.
(D) The restrictions on business activity in other states are less stringent than are those embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(E) The Clean Air Act has been only very slightly successful in achieving the goal of reduced air pollution.

2. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 86

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

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 09:02
B & C.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 453

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Location: New York

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 09:54

Conclusion = biz decline caused decrease in pollution. Assumption is that businesses do have some relation to causing pollution

We are trying to weaken the conclusion. ie maybe something besides biz decrease caused the decrease in pollution. C says that.

ywilfred wrote:
Since the passage of the stateâ€™s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

1. Which of following is an assumption made in the passage above?
(A) Most businesses in the state have obeyed the regulations embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(B) The economic decline of the state can be attributed, in part, to the effects of the Clean Air Act.
(C) The amount of air pollution in a given area is likely to be proportional to the number of businesses and workers active in that area.
(D) The restrictions on business activity in other states are less stringent than are those embodied in the Clean Air Act.
(E) The Clean Air Act has been only very slightly successful in achieving the goal of reduced air pollution.

2. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.
(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 10:26
E
A

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 15:55
1) E because the conclusion states that it is probably that the business decline is responsible for at least half of the decline which means that the Clean Air Act is assumed to have been responsible for at least half of the decline.

2) C because ... I can't really explain it but the other choices seem irrelevant or strengthens the conclusion.

This is how I feel right now...

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 716

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 18:43
1) C
2) B

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: Fringes of the Boreal, Canada

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 18:55
The assumption is what connects the premise to the conclusion.

Conclusion = "It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution. "

Premise 1 = "Since the passage of the stateâ€™s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent."

Premise 2 = "during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent."

Therefore we need to assume here that the decrease in air pollutants to some degree is proportional to the economic decline. 1 C) fits this best.

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 14

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

Location: California, USA

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2005, 19:07
1 -> C
2 -> C

:roll:

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

Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Location: Ghana

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2005, 01:41
riteshgupta1 wrote:
1) C
2) B

Those are my picks too. C and B.
_________________

It's not over until it's OVER!

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 26

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

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2005, 06:47
I am on C & C

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

Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2005, 07:14
C & C

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 257

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Location: Las Vegas, NV

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2005, 10:42
C and C here.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2005, 15:19
I will go for C and C.

-n
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 47

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

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2005, 15:59
I choose C and C also.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 278

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 0

Location: CA, USA

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2005, 20:42
C and C

for the second one, B is not as good as C because it was not able to tie the
business close with polution - something needed to weaken the conclusion in the passage

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2005, 05:32
OA: C,C

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

10 Sep 2005, 05:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 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®.