Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
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.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
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.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
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!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
17 Mar 2020, 01:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
66% (02:12) correct
34%
(02:08)
wrong
based on 759
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
This country does not need any more restrictions on pollution. In fact, we should abolish those that are currently on the books. In spite of various restrictions, pollution levels have actually increased over the past 40 years. Most importantly, dramatic statistics show that, as pollution levels have increased over this period, the general health of the population has improved rather than deteriorated.
Which one of the following assertions, if true, provides the most effective challenge to the author’s conclusion?
(A) The general health of this country’s population has improved over the past 40 years primarily because of new advances in medicine and nutrition, not because of pollution.
(B) There are several countries in the world in which there have been no restrictions on pollution over the past 40 years, and pollution levels have actually increased.
(C) Similar statistics show that, in several countries, the general health of the population has improved over the past 40 years, while pollution levels have actually decreased.
(D) Pollution levels would have increased even more than they have and the general health of the population would not have improved as much as it has without the restrictions that have been on the books.
(E) In the period prior to the past 40 years, pollution restrictions were nonexistent in this country and the general health of the population improved at a far slower rate than it did during the past 40 years.
17 Mar 2020, 03:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
The right answer is D.
Conclusion: This country does not need any more restrictions on pollution. In fact, we should abolish those that are currently on the books.
Premise: In spite of various restrictions, pollution levels have actually increased over the past 40 years. Most importantly, dramatic statistics show that, as pollution levels have increased over this period, the general health of the population has improved rather than deteriorated.
The author concludes that the country does not need any more restrictions on pollution and that current restrictions on pollution should be abolished. This because of available information pollution levels have increased over the past 40 years in spite of the restrictions. In addition, there is data that suggests that although pollution levels have gone up, the general health of the people have increased.
To weaken this argument, we need an answer choice that suggests that pollution levels would have been worse over the past 40 years had there been no restrictions on pollution. In addition, were the pollution levels higher than it currently it, the general health of the people would have been worse off. In short, although pollution levels have generally increased, it does not mean that the current restrictions do no play a role in keeping it from reaching levels higher than current levels and that the improvement in general health are not dependent on relatively lower pollution levels amidst the restrictions on pollution in the country. Looking at the answer choices, D is in line with the reasoning above, hence the D is the right answer.
Conclusion: This country does not need any more restrictions on pollution. In fact, we should abolish those that are currently on the books.
Premise: In spite of various restrictions, pollution levels have actually increased over the past 40 years. Most importantly, dramatic statistics show that, as pollution levels have increased over this period, the general health of the population has improved rather than deteriorated.
The author concludes that the country does not need any more restrictions on pollution and that current restrictions on pollution should be abolished. This because of available information pollution levels have increased over the past 40 years in spite of the restrictions. In addition, there is data that suggests that although pollution levels have gone up, the general health of the people have increased.
To weaken this argument, we need an answer choice that suggests that pollution levels would have been worse over the past 40 years had there been no restrictions on pollution. In addition, were the pollution levels higher than it currently it, the general health of the people would have been worse off. In short, although pollution levels have generally increased, it does not mean that the current restrictions do no play a role in keeping it from reaching levels higher than current levels and that the improvement in general health are not dependent on relatively lower pollution levels amidst the restrictions on pollution in the country. Looking at the answer choices, D is in line with the reasoning above, hence the D is the right answer.
Quote:
This option somehow strengthens the argument above rather than weaken it. Hence A is incorrect.
Quote:
This option is irrelevant to the conclusion above. We are unsure whether the absence of restrictions on pollution has negatively impacted the general health in such countries. If the absence of restrictions has negatively impacted the general health, then the author's conclusion is weakened but if it does not negatively impact the general health in those countries, then the argument is strengthened. B is incorrect.
Quote:
This option is also irrelevant to the conclusion of the author as it neither strengthens nor weakens it.
Quote:
This is the correct answer.
Quote:
We are concerned about the period over the last 40 years not beyond. This option is irrelevant to the argument above. E is incorrect.
17 Mar 2020, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
This country does not need any more restrictions on pollution. In fact, we should abolish those that are currently on the books. In spite of various restrictions, pollution levels have actually increased over the past 40 years. Most importantly, dramatic statistics show that, as pollution levels have increased over this period, the general health of the population has improved rather than deteriorated.
Which one of the following assertions, if true, provides the most effective challenge to the author’s conclusion?
(A) The general health of this country’s population has improved over the past 40 years primarily because of new advances in medicine and nutrition, not because of pollution. - CORRECT. Advances in medicine and nutrition not pollution is responsible for improved general health.
(B) There are several countries in the world in which there have been no restrictions on pollution over the past 40 years, and pollution levels have actually increased. - WRONG. Irrelevant. No effect at all.
(C) Similar statistics show that, in several countries, the general health of the population has improved over the past 40 years, while pollution levels have actually decreased. - WRONG. Again irrelevant. Supports the argument if at all counted.
(D) Pollution levels would have increased even more than they have and the general health of the population would not have improved as much as it has without the restrictions that have been on the books. - WRONG. It says the exact opposite of what is said in the argument but nowhere explains why general health improved.
(E) In the period prior to the past 40 years, pollution restrictions were nonexistent in this country and the general health of the population improved at a far slower rate than it did during the past 40 years. - WRONG. Looks attractive initially but it doesn't explain how general health improved in the last 40 years. Previous 40 years is irrelevant.
IMO Answer A.
Which one of the following assertions, if true, provides the most effective challenge to the author’s conclusion?
(A) The general health of this country’s population has improved over the past 40 years primarily because of new advances in medicine and nutrition, not because of pollution. - CORRECT. Advances in medicine and nutrition not pollution is responsible for improved general health.
(B) There are several countries in the world in which there have been no restrictions on pollution over the past 40 years, and pollution levels have actually increased. - WRONG. Irrelevant. No effect at all.
(C) Similar statistics show that, in several countries, the general health of the population has improved over the past 40 years, while pollution levels have actually decreased. - WRONG. Again irrelevant. Supports the argument if at all counted.
(D) Pollution levels would have increased even more than they have and the general health of the population would not have improved as much as it has without the restrictions that have been on the books. - WRONG. It says the exact opposite of what is said in the argument but nowhere explains why general health improved.
(E) In the period prior to the past 40 years, pollution restrictions were nonexistent in this country and the general health of the population improved at a far slower rate than it did during the past 40 years. - WRONG. Looks attractive initially but it doesn't explain how general health improved in the last 40 years. Previous 40 years is irrelevant.
IMO Answer A.
