Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 17:44 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 17:44
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
605-655 Level|   Weaken|      
User avatar
apramanik
User avatar
Joined: 29 May 2009
Last visit: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
219
 [42]
Posts: 16
Kudos: 219
 [42]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve Updated on: 19 Dec 2018, 00:23
Originally posted by apramanik on 30 May 2009, 04:08.
Last edited by Bunuel on 19 Dec 2018, 00:23, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
35
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:42) correct 31% (02:03) wrong based on 2185 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
humans
User avatar
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Last visit: 03 Jan 2021
Posts: 107
Own Kudos:
63
 [10]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Posts: 107
Kudos: 63
 [10]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 30 May 2009, 04:54
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state. (No discussion about economic condition in nation. Out of scope)
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution. (These is no discussion about amendments to act. Out of scope)
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. (Correct and weaken the conclusion, which states that because of economic decline air pollution had fallen)
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. (Strengthen the conclusion)
(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. (There is no talk about budget. Out of scope)
General Discussion
User avatar
abhi398
User avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Last visit: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
135
 [4]
Given Kudos: 183
Schools: Smeal (D) Broad '15 (WL) Schulich '15 (S)
Posts: 63
Kudos: 135
 [4]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 30 Aug 2012, 05:56
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. --> this arguments states that the reduction is due to the act and not because of decline of business. This is a much better answer compared to D...

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. --> this states that business decline is the reason for the reduce in pollution because the company ceased its operation.
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
8,945
 [3]
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
 [3]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 13 Feb 2017, 21:19
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
let us simplify the argument -

Premise -
level of industrial pollutants has fallen by 18 percent.

Two reasons are proposed for this -

One line of reasoning
Restrictions on industry placed by the Act have been effective.

Author's reasoning
Economic decline (No. of businesses fell by 10% + No. of workers employed fell by 12%) led to reduction in pollutants' levels.

We have been asked to weaken the author's reasoning.

Option A - Incorrect.
Not relevant. We are not concerned about the economic conditions in the nation, but whether economic conditions in the state led to a decline in levels of pollutants.

Option B - Incorrect.
Not relevant. This does not deny author's line of reasoning that economic decline led to decline in pollutant levels.

Option C - Correct Answer.
this suggests that reduction in the number of businesses (10%) was not responsible for the reduction in air pollution. Because the percentage of air polluting industries that closed was only 0.5%. (5 percent of 10%).
Then a 18% reduction in pollution levels could not have been caused by the closure of just 0.5% of the industries. Some other reason must account for this decline.

Option D - Incorrect.
Strengthens the argument.

Option E - Incorrect.
Kind of strengthens the argument.
lax enforcement might imply reduced compliance.
This then weakens the opposing argument that Restrictions on industry placed by the Act led to decline in levels of pollutants.
User avatar
sobby
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Last visit: 24 Jan 2022
Posts: 444
Own Kudos:
391
 [1]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Schools: Rotman '20 (S) Kelley '21 (S)  (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Schools: Rotman '20 (S) Kelley '21 (S)  (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Posts: 444
Kudos: 391
 [1]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 14 Feb 2017, 08:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bestaaron55
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
Show more


its C
A-Not helping in weaken .
B-Not giving any info whether economic condition or act was responsible for decline...
c- bingo -- tells only 5% business that ceased their operation were involved in air pollution....so most of the business that caused air pollution were still there but with improved air quality---weaken the conclusion that business decline was the reason for half of the decline in the pollution.
d-strengthen "use of word "partly"
e-not weakens
User avatar
Krabhay
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 19 Dec 2018
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
10
Posts: 34
Kudos: 10
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 18 Dec 2018, 22:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
a. It is not an assumption made in the passage, rather a conclusion driven from the passage.
b. It is something out of context of the passage and doesn’t deal with the decline of industrial pollutants.
c. This could be an assumption made in the passage as the results could only be derived by making this assumption.
d. Out of context of the passage and the author didn’t compare decline of industrial pollutants among various cities.
e. Passage doesn’t approve of this statement.
Hence, c is the answer.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
778,073
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,073
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 20 Dec 2019, 05:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
apramanik
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.
Show more

TWIN QUESTION: https://gmatclub.com/forum/since-the-pa ... 12928.html
User avatar
sssanskaar
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 09 Oct 2022
Posts: 221
Own Kudos:
119
Given Kudos: 163
Location: India
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Posts: 221
Kudos: 119
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 02 Feb 2021, 21:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone please explain how option D is strengthening the argument?

Argument:
Act (factor1) -> decrease in pollutants (Supposed)
But, also Business decline (factor2) -> decrease in pollutants (also supposed)
So, factor2, and NOT factor1, is responsible for at least half of the decline in pollution. <= CONCLUSION.

Goal:
To weaken the conclusion.

Pre-thinking:
What if factor1 caused factor2? Then, indirectly, factor 1 is the actual reason.

Option D:
Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years (factor2) partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. (factor1)
So, factor1 is the real culprit.

Experts CrackVerbalGMAT VeritasKarishma MartyTargetTestPrep DmitryFarber egmat GMATNinja please help me out here. :(
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [2]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve Updated on: 15 Jan 2025, 22:25
Originally posted by KarishmaB on 02 Feb 2021, 23:02.
Last edited by KarishmaB on 15 Jan 2025, 22:25, edited 1 time in total.
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
apramanik
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.
Show more

Premises:

Clean air act was passed 10 yrs ago.
Pollutants in the air fallen by 18 percent
During the same period the state has also suffered through economic decline - number of businesses has fallen by 10%.

Conclusion: Business decline, and not the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Because business declined by 10%, we are concluding that at least 9% of pollutants decline happened because of this, not the act.

We need to weaken this. So we need to say that the pollutant decline due to business decline may be of the order of less than 9%.

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.

Irrelevant

(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.

Doesn't help us change our numbers.

(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

Correct. The conclusion is claiming that more than 9% of pollution decline can be attributed to business decline but the polluting businesses comprised of only 5%. The others were anyway non polluting. Then their shutting down will have no impact on pollution levels. So we can attribute less than 9% to business decline.

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Were these large corporations causing pollution? We don't know. Note that the option above helps us bring this point to the fore. Even if it doesn't hit us on its own, option (C) helps us realise that we don't know whether these corporations were pollution causing. Perhaps they did not cause pollution at that time but wanted to set up some new processes but clean air act would not have allowed them to so they moved. We don't know. Point is, this option doesn't give us enough information to evaluate while option (C) is quite clear.

(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 anything, it shows that clean air act may not be strictly enforced and hence may not be strictly followed.

Answer (C)
User avatar
gasoline
User avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2016
Last visit: 16 Jan 2024
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
27
Given Kudos: 86
Posts: 28
Kudos: 27
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 03 Feb 2021, 05:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
apramanik
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.

Clean air act was passed 10 yrs ago.
Pollutants in the air fallen by 18 percent
During the same period the state has also suffered through economic decline - number of businesses has fallen by 10%.

Conclusion: Business decline, and not the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Because business declined by 10%, we are concluding that at least 9% of pollutants decline happened because of this, not the act.

We need to weaken this. So we need to say that the pollutant decline due to business decline may be of the order of less than 9%.

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.

Irrelevant

(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.

Doesn't help us change our numbers.

(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

Correct. The conclusion is claiming that more than 9% of pollution decline can be attributed to business decline but the polluting businesses comprised of only 5%. The others were anyway non polluting. Then their shutting down will have no impact on pollution levels. So we can attribute less than 9% to business decline.

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Were these large corporations causing pollution? We don't know. Note that the option above helps us bring this point to the fore. Even if it doesn't hit us on its own, option (C) helps us realise that we don't know whether these corporations were pollution causing. Perhaps they did not cause pollution at that time but wanted to set up some new processes but clean air act would not have allowed them to so they moved. We don't know. Point is, this option doesn't give us enough information to evaluate while option (C) is quite clear.

(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 anything, it shows that clean air act may not be strictly enforced and hence may not be strictly followed.

Answer (C)
Show more

Dear VeritasKarishma

Greetings!
Kindly help to clear my doubt.
Option C states 'of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries'.
What if this 5% that was engaged in air polluting activities was the highest contributor to air pollution?
Suppose the 5% contributed to more than 9% in pollutants.
5% Industries engaged in air pollution can have a larger share in causing air pollution. So, we can attribute this change in air pollution level to economic slowdown.
Thank you.

Regards
User avatar
krndatta
User avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2020
Last visit: 17 Oct 2024
Posts: 383
Own Kudos:
44
Given Kudos: 433
Location: India
Posts: 383
Kudos: 44
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 28 Mar 2022, 19:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB ma'am,

option B says that amendments to the act were strengthened 6 years ago. Doesn't this too lead us to the conclusion that business decline was not responsible but amendments to the act were responsible for the decline in pollution?

This too weakens our conclusion. Please evaluate my reasoning.

Thanks
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [1]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 28 Mar 2022, 21:17
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
krndatta
KarishmaB ma'am,

option B says that amendments to the act were strengthened 6 years ago. Doesn't this too lead us to the conclusion that business decline was not responsible but amendments to the act were responsible for the decline in pollution?

This too weakens our conclusion. Please evaluate my reasoning.

Thanks
Show more

The conclusion is that at least 9% decline can be attributed to business decline and rest 9% or less to the act, no matter how strong or weak the act is. To weaken this we need to show why 9% may not be attributable to business or why greater than 9% may be attributable to the act. Saying that the act is stringent doesn't help us change these figures. What says that at what level of strictness will the act lead to 9% or more reduction? There is no measure of the strength of the act and its connection with the impact on pollution. So (B) is irrelevant.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [1]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 28 Mar 2022, 21:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gasoline
VeritasKarishma
apramanik
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.

Clean air act was passed 10 yrs ago.
Pollutants in the air fallen by 18 percent
During the same period the state has also suffered through economic decline - number of businesses has fallen by 10%.

Conclusion: Business decline, and not the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Because business declined by 10%, we are concluding that at least 9% of pollutants decline happened because of this, not the act.

We need to weaken this. So we need to say that the pollutant decline due to business decline may be of the order of less than 9%.

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.

Irrelevant

(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.

Doesn't help us change our numbers.

(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

Correct. The conclusion is claiming that more than 9% of pollution decline can be attributed to business decline but the polluting businesses comprised of only 5%. The others were anyway non polluting. Then their shutting down will have no impact on pollution levels. So we can attribute less than 9% to business decline.

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Were these large corporations causing pollution? We don't know. Note that the option above helps us bring this point to the fore. Even if it doesn't hit us on its own, option (C) helps us realise that we don't know whether these corporations were pollution causing. Perhaps they did not cause pollution at that time but wanted to set up some new processes but clean air act would not have allowed them to so they moved. We don't know. Point is, this option doesn't give us enough information to evaluate while option (C) is quite clear.

(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 anything, it shows that clean air act may not be strictly enforced and hence may not be strictly followed.

Answer (C)

Dear VeritasKarishma

Greetings!
Kindly help to clear my doubt.
Option C states 'of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries'.
What if this 5% that was engaged in air polluting activities was the highest contributor to air pollution?
Suppose the 5% contributed to more than 9% in pollutants.
5% Industries engaged in air pollution can have a larger share in causing air pollution. So, we can attribute this change in air pollution level to economic slowdown.
Thank you.

Regards
Show more

Note the basis of the logic of the argument. Business saw a 10% decline. So at least half of the 18% decline in pollution (i.e. 9% or more) is because business declined by 10%. So the argument is pretty much assuming that a 10% decline in business led to a 10% decline in pollution. The rest can be attributed to the act. But if we are given that a very small fraction of the businesses used to pollute, then can we say that we can attribute 10% decline to them? No. It weakens our conclusion. Note that it doesn't prove without doubt that we can attribute very little to businesses shutting down (as you said, taking the extreme case, the 5% of the businesses could be responsible for most pollution) but it does weaken our conclusion.
gasoline
User avatar
Banmeet
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2024
Last visit: 16 Dec 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 123
Posts: 6
Kudos: 5
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 16 Jul 2024, 02:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi, can anyone help me clarify something.

I Picked D and here is why,
So Option (C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

What if the 5% industry was responsible for 50% of the pollution in the state ( exaggerated number but you get what i'm trying to say)

As for option (D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.

It is pretty clearly defined that the companies were leaving because of the issue of compliance, meaning that the laws were being implemented and enforced on ground levels which lead to the reduction in pollution levels.


How do you choose the correct option when there is a lot of ambiguity, especially when the arguments or pointers are very closely matched?­
User avatar
Sanchit19
User avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2024
Last visit: 15 Mar 2025
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 246
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 05 Sep 2024, 12:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
humans
(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state. (No discussion about economic condition in nation. Out of scope)
(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution. (These is no discussion about amendments to act. Out of scope)
(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries. (Correct and weaken the conclusion, which states that because of economic decline air pollution had fallen)
(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. (Strengthen the conclusion)
(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. (There is no talk about budget. Out of scope)
Show more
­Marking options as out of scope, when the question explicitly states that, which of the following "If True", does not make sense to me. I think, we have to assume that each of the options as True, i.e. to have taken place..

idk, but if (B) is seen to be true, then it sort of places the blame of reducing the industrial pollution on the enactment of the law itself and not on the decline in Business/Economy..

whereas if you look at (C) closely, even though a small number of businesses that went out of commission were pollution causing.. they might be causing a lot of pollution. Could have even caused 50% of the total pollution. Nothing in (C) stops us from assuming that. Hence it maybe false.

Please correct me if you see faults in my reasoning. Would appreciate it.
User avatar
Nitish1103
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2022
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
11
Given Kudos: 40
Location: India
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
Schools: LBS '26 (S) Said '27 (D) Ross '27 (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q84 V81 DI83
Schools: LBS '26 (S) Said '27 (D) Ross '27 (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q84 V81 DI83
Posts: 18
Kudos: 11
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 15 Jan 2025, 22:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi KarishmaB


Sorry but I could not understand the logic behind picking option C.
The Level of Industrial Pollutants in the air fell by 18 percent and our aim is to weaken the claim that at least half of this reduction is attributable to economic decline and not the clean air act.
which means somehow we have to prove that economic decline is not responsible or act was really responsible in a bigger way than the economic decline.

By choosing option C, are we not confusing the two percentages? 9% reduction is the level of industrial pollutants in the air. whereas 5% of all businesses, is the number of businesses, that left were polluting industries. Isn't it possible that these 5% businesses were actually responsible for the most pollutants in the air?

For example if total 100 businesses left then 5% of them, 5 businesses were air polluting businesses. Are we not ignoring the assumption that these 5 might be the ones causing the most pollution among all pollution causing businesses, so the leaving of 5% businesses led to reduction of atleast 9% in the air pollutants in the air.



KarishmaB
apramanik
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.

Clean air act was passed 10 yrs ago.
Pollutants in the air fallen by 18 percent
During the same period the state has also suffered through economic decline - number of businesses has fallen by 10%.

Conclusion: Business decline, and not the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Because business declined by 10%, we are concluding that at least 9% of pollutants decline happened because of this, not the act.

We need to weaken this. So we need to say that the pollutant decline due to business decline may be of the order of less than 9%.

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.

Irrelevant

(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.

Doesn't help us change our numbers.

(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

Correct. The conclusion is claiming that more than 9% of pollution decline can be attributed to business decline but the polluting businesses comprised of only 5%. The others were anyway non polluting. Then their shutting down will have no impact on pollution levels. So we can attribute less than 9% to business decline.

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Were these large corporations causing pollution? We don't know. Note that the option above helps us bring this point to the fore. Even if it doesn't hit us on its own, option (C) helps us realise that we don't know whether these corporations were pollution causing. Perhaps they did not cause pollution at that time but wanted to set up some new processes but clean air act would not have allowed them to so they moved. We don't know. Point is, this option doesn't give us enough information to evaluate while option (C) is quite clear.

(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 anything, it shows that clean air act may not be strictly enforced and hence may not be strictly followed.

Answer (C)
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [1]
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 15 Jan 2025, 22:28
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Nitish1103
Hi KarishmaB


Sorry but I could not understand the logic behind picking option C.
The Level of Industrial Pollutants in the air fell by 18 percent and our aim is to weaken the claim that at least half of this reduction is attributable to economic decline and not the clean air act.
which means somehow we have to prove that economic decline is not responsible or act was really responsible in a bigger way than the economic decline.

By choosing option C, are we not confusing the two percentages? 9% reduction is the level of industrial pollutants in the air. whereas 5% of all businesses, is the number of businesses, that left were polluting industries. Isn't it possible that these 5% businesses were actually responsible for the most pollutants in the air?

For example if total 100 businesses left then 5% of them, 5 businesses were air polluting businesses. Are we not ignoring the assumption that these 5 might be the ones causing the most pollution among all pollution causing businesses, so the leaving of 5% businesses led to reduction of atleast 9% in the air pollutants in the air.



KarishmaB
apramanik
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.

Clean air act was passed 10 yrs ago.
Pollutants in the air fallen by 18 percent
During the same period the state has also suffered through economic decline - number of businesses has fallen by 10%.

Conclusion: Business decline, and not the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Because business declined by 10%, we are concluding that at least 9% of pollutants decline happened because of this, not the act.

We need to weaken this. So we need to say that the pollutant decline due to business decline may be of the order of less than 9%.

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.

Irrelevant

(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.

Doesn't help us change our numbers.

(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

Correct. The conclusion is claiming that more than 9% of pollution decline can be attributed to business decline but the polluting businesses comprised of only 5%. The others were anyway non polluting. Then their shutting down will have no impact on pollution levels. So we can attribute less than 9% to business decline.

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Were these large corporations causing pollution? We don't know. Note that the option above helps us bring this point to the fore. Even if it doesn't hit us on its own, option (C) helps us realise that we don't know whether these corporations were pollution causing. Perhaps they did not cause pollution at that time but wanted to set up some new processes but clean air act would not have allowed them to so they moved. We don't know. Point is, this option doesn't give us enough information to evaluate while option (C) is quite clear.

(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 anything, it shows that clean air act may not be strictly enforced and hence may not be strictly followed.

Answer (C)
Show more

Our intent in weaken questions is not to establish that the conclusion is false - it is simply to raise doubt. To weaken the possibility that it is true.
It is certainly possible that the 5% businesses that were shot down were the most polluting and hence the conclusion still holds. But when we are given (C), does it make us doubt our conclusion? Does it make us go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate data more closely? Yes.
And hence it is weakener. It casts doubt on the author's conclusion.
User avatar
Suyash1331
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jul 2023
Last visit: 20 Oct 2025
Posts: 118
Own Kudos:
61
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
Schools: IIMA '26 IIM IIM Calcutta '26 Judge '26 ISB '27 Said '27
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q65 V70 DI70
GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34
GPA: 7
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: IIMA '26 IIM IIM Calcutta '26 Judge '26 ISB '27 Said '27
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q65 V70 DI70
GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34
Posts: 118
Kudos: 61
Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve 23 Jan 2025, 10:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
the answer will weaken the assumption that economic decline led to at least half of the decline in pollution.
hence option C says that 5 % of the businesses ceased that year were engaged in air polluting activities. hence 5% cannot lead to a decline of 50 % pollution. C is correct

apramanik
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.
Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts