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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.
Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?
A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past. B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only. C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe. D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive. E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.
whats the answer ? why ?
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.
Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?
A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past. B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only. C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe. D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive. E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.
Used POE to narrow down to C & D. I was inclined towards C, however, D seems correct.
Out of scope. Also irrelevant since there is no mention of any pesticide filtering A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
Out of scope. Nothing mentioned about fund allocation B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
Out of scope. Extend of harm is not discussed since the company has stated (premises) that they dumping is not harmful C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
Correct. The dumping of unused pesticides is harmless. Therefore, might as well locate the dumping station at a location that has fewer regulations / cheaper D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
Out of scope. Nothing is mentioned about anyone suing the company E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.
A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.
Show more
Can some one please resolve the question. P1 : Unused Pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to aquatic life. P2 : Pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the aquatic life.
Why does it have 2 premises each exactly opposite to the other ? I am unable to make sense of the Premises itself.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.