|
|
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.
19 Aug 2024, 12:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:48) correct
22%
(01:44)
wrong
based on 152
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The legislature is considering a proposed bill that would prohibit fishing in Eagle Bay. Despite widespread concern over the economic effect this ban would have on the local fishing industry, the bill should be enacted. The bay has one of the highest water pollution levels in the nation, and a recent study of the bay’s fish found that 80 percent of them contained toxin levels that exceed governmental safety standards. Continuing to permit fishing in Eagle Bay could thus have grave effects on public health.
The argument proceeds by presenting evidence that:
(A) The toxic contamination of fish in Eagle Bay has had grave economic effects on the local fishing industry
(B) The moral principle that an action must be judged on the basis of its foreseeable effects is usually correct
(C) The opponents of the ban have failed to weigh properly its foreseeable negative effects against its positive ones
(D) Failure to enact the ban would carry with it unacceptable risks for the public welfare
(E) The ban would reduce the level of toxins in the fish in Eagle Bay
Source: LSAT PrepTest 61 - 2010
The argument proceeds by presenting evidence that:
(A) The toxic contamination of fish in Eagle Bay has had grave economic effects on the local fishing industry
(B) The moral principle that an action must be judged on the basis of its foreseeable effects is usually correct
(C) The opponents of the ban have failed to weigh properly its foreseeable negative effects against its positive ones
(D) Failure to enact the ban would carry with it unacceptable risks for the public welfare
(E) The ban would reduce the level of toxins in the fish in Eagle Bay
Source: LSAT PrepTest 61 - 2010
15 Sep 2025, 00:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can someone please post official explanation
15 Sep 2025, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, let me try to explain as per my understanding-
(A) The toxic contamination of fish in Eagle Bay has had grave economic effects on the local fishing industry - this is true, but this is not the evidence which passage provides, it just mentions that the toxins in the fish are harmful for public health, so out.
(B) The moral principle that an action must be judged on the basis of its foreseeable effects is usually correct - this is something about moral principle, which is not looking relevant
(C) The opponents of the ban have failed to weigh properly its foreseeable negative effects against its positive ones - nothing about positive vs negative foreseeable effects
(D) Failure to enact the ban would carry with it unacceptable risks for the public welfare - correct, this is what the argument suggests
(E) The ban would reduce the level of toxins in the fish in Eagle Bay- We dont know that, we just know that the ban will help to reduce the risk of public health
Hope this helps!
(A) The toxic contamination of fish in Eagle Bay has had grave economic effects on the local fishing industry - this is true, but this is not the evidence which passage provides, it just mentions that the toxins in the fish are harmful for public health, so out.
(B) The moral principle that an action must be judged on the basis of its foreseeable effects is usually correct - this is something about moral principle, which is not looking relevant
(C) The opponents of the ban have failed to weigh properly its foreseeable negative effects against its positive ones - nothing about positive vs negative foreseeable effects
(D) Failure to enact the ban would carry with it unacceptable risks for the public welfare - correct, this is what the argument suggests
(E) The ban would reduce the level of toxins in the fish in Eagle Bay- We dont know that, we just know that the ban will help to reduce the risk of public health
Hope this helps!
AbhishekP220108
