Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Feb 2017, 11:50

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 325
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2007, 18:01
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 state’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.

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.
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2007, 18:09
I think D
Director
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 610
Location: New Haven, CT
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2007, 18:19
D is correct. This is saying that act caused air polluting businesses to leave which would also cause business decline and the air to be cleaner.
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2007, 03:52
How can it be D...it has to be C...This says that the polluting businesses ceased were actually very less,so it is the restrictions that caused this decline in pollution.

D stregthens the argument by saying that business decline caused pollution decline.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 104
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2007, 09:53
i think its D .
D doesnt strengthen the argument ....as it says business ceased to operate because of the non compliance to restrictions and not because of the economic decline .It weaknes the arguments by saying that these large corporations left because their air pollution content was so much that they could not comply with the restrictions.

C says only 5% of the pollution making industries shut down because of the decline in economy doesn't mean that they were not making significant contribution to pollution. Possibilty is that these 5 % were contibuting most to the pollution. so in C we have to assume a bit to consider it as answer.

~sara
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2007
Posts: 373
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2007, 10:44
conclusion: businesses, not the Act, caused the decline

we want to weaken the conclusion

C says only 5% of the businesses that stopped operating contributed to the pollution, which means the rest of the businesses that stopped operating did not pollute to begin with, so the decline in pollution could not have been contributed by those 95% of companies that stopped operating, thus, if those businesses did not cause the decline, the Act must have

D simply says some corporations left to avoid the Act, this is not sufficient information to adequately weaken the conclusion

Manager
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2007, 17:25
vineetgupta wrote:
How can it be D...it has to be C...This says that the polluting businesses ceased were actually very less,so it is the restrictions that caused this decline in pollution.

D stregthens the argument by saying that business decline caused pollution decline.
But the regulations were directly responsible for the flight of business from the area.
19 Jun 2007, 17:25
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Since the passage of the state's Clean Air Act ten years ago, the 3 13 Feb 2017, 06:45
Q. Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years 0 30 May 2009, 03:07
Since the passage of the states Clean Air Act ten years ago, 14 08 Oct 2007, 20:08
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years 2 27 Mar 2007, 15:10
Since the passage of the state s Clean Air Act ten years 4 16 Mar 2007, 14:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by