Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 05:05 It is currently 21 May 2024, 05:05
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4383
Own Kudos [?]: 30920 [2]
Given Kudos: 639
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 588
Own Kudos [?]: 1531 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4383
Own Kudos [?]: 30920 [1]
Given Kudos: 639
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 588
Own Kudos [?]: 1531 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
Premise 1: Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted
Premise 2: Volcanic eruptions have released more chemicals
Conclusion: Volcanic eruptions have depleted more ozone.

To the above add the following premise

Premise 3: Rate of release of chemicals is more important in determining the amount of ozone depleted

Now given the above premise can we reach the conclusion stated above? I guess not. Because unless we know certainly what premise 3 would ensue we cannot the the conclusion stated. That is my point.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65401 [1]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
1
Kudos
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Premise 1: Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted

There is the problem.

"Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted." is not a premise. It is what the author is implying/assuming. It is not given as a fact.

Let's review the argument:

The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. - A fact about what people generally think.

While that may be the case, the attribution of such depletion to man-made chemicals is not true. - Conclusion of the argument

Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all mankind in history. - Fact about who produces more ozone-depleting chemicals

The argument does not tell us that "Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted." It is something the author is implying. He is assuming that if more chemicals are released, more ozone is depleted. The point is that if the 'chemicals released' are unable to reach the ozone layer, they cannot deplete it. So the author is assuming that the chemicals released are able to reach the ozone layer.

Hence answer has to be (D).
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 588
Own Kudos [?]: 1531 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Premise 1: Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted

There is the problem.

"Quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted." is not a premise. It is what the author is implying/assuming. It is not given as a fact.

.

Dear VeritasPrepKarishma,

How can it be not the premise? It is the author's view that the quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted. And he makes his conclusion solely based on that view. What else is the premise of the argument then?
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65401 [0]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
SravnaTestPrep wrote:

Dear VeritasPrepKarishma,

How can it be not the premise? It is the author's view that the quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted. And he makes his conclusion solely based on that view. What else is the premise of the argument then?

As you said, it is the author's view. Views/opinions are not premises. Premises are only the facts given.

The given premises are:

- The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. - The fact is that this is a popular view among people.
- Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. - This is a fact that Mount Pinatubo spews more ozone depleting chemicals that man.
- Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them - Again, a fact about chemical output.

No other fact/premise is given.
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 588
Own Kudos [?]: 1531 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:

Dear VeritasPrepKarishma,

How can it be not the premise? It is the author's view that the quantity of chemicals released determines how much of ozone is depleted. And he makes his conclusion solely based on that view. What else is the premise of the argument then?

As you said, it is the author's view. Views/opinions are not premises. Premises are only the facts given.

The given premises are:

- The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. - The fact is that this is a popular view among people.
- Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. - This is a fact that Mount Pinatubo spews more ozone depleting chemicals that man.
- Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them - Again, a fact about chemical output.

No other fact/premise is given.

Premise need not be a fact alone. It can be a proposition or in other words a view. The important point that is the conclusion of the argument should be based on that. In our case the conclusion of the author is based on his view that quantity of chemicals released is what is important.
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 588
Own Kudos [?]: 1531 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
Here's the official answer and explanation:

Understanding the passage

Conclusion:
The attribution of depletion of Ozone layer to man-made chemicals is not true.

Premises:
1. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history
2. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them

In this case, premises 1 and 2 are set of dependent information pieces and comprise a single reason used by the author to arrive at the conclusion. In essence, the reason is:

Ozone depleting chemicals produced by Mount Pinatubo is much greater (probably billion of times) than ozone depleting chemicals (fluorocarbons) produced by mankind.
This reason is used to signal that man-made chemicals can only play an insignificant role in the depletion of Ozone layer.
Therefore, (Conclusion) Man-made chemicals can’t be held responsible for ozone layer depletion.

Prethinking

As we can see, the argument is talking only in terms of the amount of ODC ( Ozone Depleting Chemicals), not in terms of their impact on the ozone layer. This is a missing link that is needed to establish the correctness of the argument.
So, a statement like “ODCs generated by volcanic eruptions have the same effect on the Ozone as ODCs generated by mankind”, would complete the argument.
However, this is not a must-be-true statement. Why? Because we know that the quantity of volcanic ODCs is probably billions of times greater than man-made ODCs, therefore, even if volcanic ODCs have much less effect than man-made ODCs, our conclusion would still hold.

Therefore, our only requirement can be that volcanic ODCs have at least some effect on the Ozone layer.
However, why would ODCs be called so if they don’t have any effect on Ozone layer. So, they have to have some impact. This leads me to think that there are only two situations in which the argument won't hold:

1. Volcanic ODCs don’t reach Ozone layer due to some reason (hypothetical) –
a. Probably because due to their high temperature. they react with some chemical as soon as they reach atmosphere and this reaction snaps their ability to deplete Ozone layer
b. Their chemical or physical properties is different from man-made ODCs and these properties prevent them from reaching Ozone layer

2. Volcanic ODCs can’t deplete unless the depletion has been started by man-made ODCs. Suppose, Ozone layer exists in a very stable state – this state cannot be affected by volcanic ODCs. However, once man-made ODCs can start reactions with this stable state of Ozone and deplete it, this makes the Ozone layer reactive even to Volcanic ODCs.

In both the situations above, our conclusion won’t hold. Therefore, negation of either of the two statements could be a valid assumption and therefore, answer to our question.

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone. – So what? We are concerned with the cause of depletion, not the time-frame. Incorrect.

B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons. – As we analyzed in the pre-thinking, this is not required. Even if a molecule of volcanic chemical destroys much less ozone than a man-made chemical, the conclusion will still hold. Therefore, this is not a must be true statement. Thus, Incorrect.

C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies – This can be inferred from the passage. Therefore, this presents no new information and thus, cannot be an assumption. Incorrect.

D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides. – This is in line with our prethinking. If these volcanic ODCs don’t reach ozone layer, then the reasoning of the argument breaks down. Therefore, this is a must-be-true statement for the argument to hold. Correct.

E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released. – Given this statement is in a negative form “not more”. Let’s negate it and see if the conclusion breaks down. We can see that even if rate is more important than the quantity, it doesn’t impact the conclusion, since we don’t know whether slow rate depletes Ozone layer more or fast rate depletes more. Therefore, Incorrect.

Therefore, the answer choice is Option D.

Hope this helps

-Chiranjeev Singh

In my opinion an assumption should relate to the argument. Only then it makes sense. If we can assume choice D then we can equally assume the following: "Scientists who have the capability of preventing ozone depleting chemicals from reaching the stratosphere would not do so". But does it make sense considering the argument?

The way we need to go about it is that we first take the premise of the argument which is: the quantity of the ozone depleting chemicals determines how much of ozone is depleted. An assumption should be something which fills the gap which the above premise leaves open so that the conclusion is valid. What does the premise miss? It misses the possibility that some other factor than quantity might also determine ozone depletion and it might be more important. So we look for a choice that says exactly that. Choice E does that. I would have been perfect if Choice E had been more general but it does a better job than choice D.

So in spite of the official answer being announced as D, I would still stick with choice E.
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 May 2019
Posts: 322
Own Kudos [?]: 243 [0]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon. While that may be the case, the attribution of such depletion to man-made chemicals is not true. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one volcanic eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history. Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can it be held responsible for destroying ozone.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the author depends?

A. It would take mankind more than 4 billion years to destroy Ozone.

B. Each molecule of ozone depleting chemical released during an eruption of Mount Pinatubo destroys the same quantity of ozone as a molecule of fluorocarbons.

C. The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a single eruption in Mount Pinatubo is much higher than the quantity of fluorocarbons produced by the companies

D. The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides.

E. The rate at which an ozone depleting chemical, whether man-made or released in a volcanic eruption, is released is not more important in the destruction of ozone layer than the quantity of chemicals released.

I have doubt related to option "B".
"Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them"

Due to above statement only option B is wrong.
Am i right ?
If 1 molecule of fluorocarbons have effect equivalent to 1 million times effect of 1 molecule of ozone depleting molecule from eruption, then B would be correct.
Intern
Joined: 28 Jun 2020
Posts: 49
Own Kudos [?]: 17 [0]
Given Kudos: 64
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GPA: 3.5
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layer’s depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
The molecular structure of ozone-depleting chemicals released during a volcanic eruption does not prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides

It mentions that the molecular structure of the OZONE DEPLETING CHEMICALS *DOES NOT* prevent them from reaching the stratosphere, means the ODC reach the stratosphere.. Hence, the Ozone will be depleted, I think does not should not be used.. Please help! I am unable to grasp why we need to use DOES NOT
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17346
Own Kudos [?]: 851 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layers depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
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.
Re: The popular view is that Ozone layers depletion is real, as certain a [#permalink]
1   2
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts