To lay cable to remote areas would be prohibitively expensive since th

To lay cable to remote areas would be prohibitively expensive since the number of customers served by such cable lines would be too small for the cable company to make a profit. Microwave cable service is a good alternative for use in remote areas because the signal is sent through the air and cables are unnecessary. However, microwave cable service should not become standard practice in non-remote areas, because the long-term effects of microwaves are not known.
Premises:
Lay cables- expensive
Microwave-sent through air-no cable needed-less expensive.
"May be" Harmful for non remote areas.(as it suggested that it should not become a standard practice in non remote areas, we can infer that the effect of the microwaves is more on the non remote areas)

Initial conclusion: since we the cable is expensive we are using microwave for remote areas but it might not be safe for non remote areas.. so conclusion drawn for something related to remote areas.

Now search for an airtight conclusion

Which of the following is the best conclusion to the statements above?

a. Microwave technology should be regulated by the government indefinitely.(irrelevant)

b. Residents of remote areas must take precautions to mitigate the potential danger of microwaves.(there's no specific harm mentioned for the remote residents)

c. Most residents of non-remote areas will not want to change their existing service to microwave service.(irrelevant because the argument doesn't give any premise for willingness of the residents to change the service.)

d. Microwave cable service is safe enough for use in remote areas.(from the inference we can see that there is less effect of microwaves on remote areas)

e. Microwaves are potentially more dangerous in urban areas than in suburban areas.(the argument doesn't give any premise related to urban or suburban areas, however we can assume that based on the population density of the urban areas the option should be valid. But the effect of microwaves can equally dangerous in both the areas.. who knows!)

I find options E to strongly compete to be the right answer, however we have to make an assumption about the population density and the effect of microwaves on different conditions present in the urban and suburban areas which seems to not be an airtight conclusion.

Hence option D

This is my approach to the question.
__________________
Please give a kudos. Thanks.

Posted from my mobile device

Here are my 2 cents:

For this question type we need to select a conclusion which sums up the idea of the mentioned argument.

"However, microwave cable service should not become standard practice in non-remote areas, because the long-term effects of microwaves are not known."

The bold part implies that either cable service is better in remote areas or in non-remote areas it holds a problem.

Let us know have a look at the answer options

a. Microwave technology should be regulated by the government indefinitely. -> Not mentioned in the argument.

b. Residents of remote areas must take precautions to mitigate the potential danger of microwaves. -> No potential dangers are mentioned in the passage.

c. Most residents of non-remote areas will not want to change their existing service to microwave service. -> This is just a part of the argument and cannot be the conclusion. Out

d. Microwave cable service is safe enough for use in remote areas -> Correct Answer( as discussed earlier)

e. Microwaves are potentially more dangerous in urban areas than in suburban areas. -> Nothing mentioned about suburban areas.

To lay cable to remote areas would be prohibitively expensive since the number of customers served by such cable lines would be too small for the cable company to make a profit. Microwave cable service is a good alternative for use in remote areas because the signal is sent through the air and cables are unnecessary. However, microwave cable service should not become standard practice in non-remote areas, because the long-term effects of microwaves are not known.

Which of the following is the best conclusion to the statements above?

So Microwaves is an alternative to standard cable lines for residents living in remote areas, however using same technology in non-remote areas is not safe. what can be concluded?

a. Microwave technology should be regulated by the government indefinitely. (out of scope. not mentioned.)

b. Residents of remote areas must take precautions to mitigate the potential danger of microwaves. ( out of scope. there is no danger for residents living in remote areas.


c. Most residents of non-remote areas will not want to change their existing service to microwave service. ( i cant conclude that for most of residents. out of scope.)



d. Microwave cable service is safe enough for use in remote areas. ( yep, i can conclude this based on info below. Microwave cable service is a good alternative for use in remote areas, however microwave cable service should not become standard practice in non-remote areas, because the long-term effects of microwaves are not known.



e. Microwaves are potentially more dangerous in urban areas than in suburban areas. (suburban areas are not mentioned so out of scope.

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.