The level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere

Question

The level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is slightly higher than it was ten years ago. This increase is troubling because ten years ago the Interior Ministry imposed new, stricter regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants. If these regulations had been followed, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere would have decreased. 
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

(A) If current regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants are not followed from now on, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase.

(B) There have been violations of the regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants that were imposed ten years ago.

(C) If the regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants are made even stronger, the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere still will not decrease.

(D) Emissions from coal-burning power plants are one of the main sources of air pollution.

(E) Government regulations will never reduce the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere

Source: LSAT

broall · Answer

The argument implies that these regulations had not been followed. This lead to the choice B.

guialain · Answer

Option B seems to be given in the passage, thus not really a new information.
Option A is more forward looking, hence looks more like and inference.

Why is A wrong?

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

The level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is slightly higher than it was ten years ago. This increase is troubling because ten years ago the Interior Ministry imposed new, stricter regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants. If these regulations had been followed, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere would have decreased.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

(A) If current regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants are not followed from now on, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase.
 we cannot imply this for the future as the levels may or may not increase.

(B) There have been violations of the regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants that were imposed ten years ago.
 Correct answer since the regulations were imposed but the pollution is still increasing.That means there has been a violation in the regulation.

(C) If the regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants are made even stronger, the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere still will not decrease.
 The decrease in the levels is not deisccused,so out of scope.

(D) Emissions from coal-burning power plants are one of the main sources of air pollution.
 Air pollution is out of scope as we are only discussing sulpher dioxide.

(E) Government regulations will never reduce the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere
 No such point.

abhimahna · Answer

A says if these regulations are not followed, there will be an increase in SO2. But what is we do something else apart from these regulations. In that case, A would be invalid. So, determining the future like this would be wrong.

B is correct because it is proving the point that the regulations were created but not followed and if followed could help.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Let us simplify the argument --

Context 
 SO2 levels higher than they were 10 years ago + 10 years ago ministry imposed stricter regulations on coal burning power plants  -------(1)

Argument 
 If regulations had been followed --> level of SO2 would have decreased  ---------(2)

from (1) we know that levels of SO2 have not decreased but have risen. Hence, we can conclude that --
 regulations have not been followed

Which answer option states this? Option B.

Option A - Incorrect 
Not necessarily. Maybe the level of SO2 has hit a saturation point (because of natural processes) and not regulating emissions would not really increase SO2 levels in the atmosphere.
It is also possible that cleaner power producing technology is invented in the near future and hence coal-burning plants would be rendered obsolete. Not regulating such plants' emissions would not necessarily mean increase in emissions.

Option C - Incorrect 
We cannot infer this. Probably if the regulations are made even stronger, they might get imposed everywhere and thus SO2 levels would decrease.

Option D - Incorrect 
We know that coal-burning power plants emit SO2 into the atmosphere but we are unsure whether such plants are the "main" source of air pollution.

Option E - Incorrect 
We cannot make predictions for all time just based on data from past 10 years. Too extreme.

CEdward · Answer

This one had a lot of extreme answer choices that are easily spotted. The real contenders are A) and B).

The level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is slightly higher than it was ten years ago. This increase is troubling because ten years ago the Interior Ministry imposed new, stricter regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants. If these regulations had been followed, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere would have decreased.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?

(A) If current regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants are not followed from now on, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere  will continue to increase.  X
This is totally plausible, but the past is not indicative of the future. We can't be sure that the levels of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase b/c we don't know what other factors contribute to this toxin in the air and how they will be modulated.

(B) There have been violations of the regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants that were imposed ten years ago. 
CORRECT. There is a paradox here...we see that despite the implementation of the regulations...the emissions still went up...so we can correctly infer that these plants have violated the rules.

(C) If the regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants are made even stronger, the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere  still will not decrease.  X
How likely is this really? Probably not likely at all. Again, the past is not indicative of the future. We don't know what those regulations might entail (e.g. suppose they added significant financial incentives/penalties over and above the existing stipulations...maybe that might drive companies to behave more)

(D) Emissions from coal-burning power plants are one of the  main sources  of air pollution. X
We don't know this from the passage.

(E) Government regulations  will never reduce  the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere X
Again, too extreme.

HorseGiggles · Answer

I know the answer is (B) but this option seems too obvious. I mean it is already stated in the passage in the last sentence like this "If these regulations had been followed, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere would have decreased."

If is already given in the passage (quite directly) then how is it inferred?

If is already given in the passage (quite directly) then how is it inferred?

MBAB123 · Answer

VatsSaraf , the inference is that these regulations were not followed. The passage never explicitly states that these regulations were not followed. It just states a scenario that would have happened if these regulations were followed. It's not as direct as it seems but yes, I agree that it's a pretty straightforward inference.

vishalsinghvs08 · Answer

We can infer Option B here. 
What if the number of coal-burning plants has increased over the 10 year period and this increase has led to more emissions?

Please help. Thank you

vishalsinghvs08 · Answer

mysterymanrog   CrackverbalGMAT

We cant infer Option B here. 
What if the number of coal-burning plants has increased over the 10 year period and this increase has led to more emissions?

Please help. Thank you

MartyMurray · Answer

Notice that the passage says the following:

If these regulations had been followed, then the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere would have decreased.

From that information, we know that, regardless of whether the number of coal-burning plants increased, if the regulations had been followed, the level of sulfur dioxide would have decreased.

So, (B) is true regardless of whether the number of coal-burning plants increased.

Paras96 · Answer

From the information given in the passage, we can properly infer the following:

(B) There have been violations of the regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants that were imposed ten years ago.

The passage mentions that the level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is slightly higher than it was ten years ago, despite the imposition of new, stricter regulations on emissions from coal-burning power plants at that time. The increase suggests that these regulations may not have been followed entirely, indicating violations.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

The level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The level of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards