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 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.
30 Aug 2024, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
81% (01:32) correct
19%
(02:10)
wrong
based on 179
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The petrochemical industry claims that chemical waste dumps pose no threat to people living near them. If this is true, then why do they locate the plants in sparsely populated regions? By not locating the chemical dumps in densely populated areas the petrochemical industry tacitly admits that these chemicals are potentially dangerous to the people living nearby.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's argument?
(A) Funding through the environmental Super Fund to clean up poorly run waste dumps is reserved for rural areas only.
(B) Until chemical dumps are proven 100% safe, it would be imprudent to locate them were they could potentially do the most harm.
(C) Locating the dumps in sparsely populated areas is less expensive and involves less government red tape.
(D) The potential for chemicals to leach into the water table has in the past been underestimated.
(E) People in cities are more likely to sue the industry if their health is harmed by the dumps.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's argument?
(A) Funding through the environmental Super Fund to clean up poorly run waste dumps is reserved for rural areas only.
(B) Until chemical dumps are proven 100% safe, it would be imprudent to locate them were they could potentially do the most harm.
(C) Locating the dumps in sparsely populated areas is less expensive and involves less government red tape.
(D) The potential for chemicals to leach into the water table has in the past been underestimated.
(E) People in cities are more likely to sue the industry if their health is harmed by the dumps.
01 Sep 2024, 04:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
pls explain why not option E because im confused between option C&E
01 Sep 2024, 04:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
HarshZsssh
Conclusion: They have plants in less populated area because the chemical is harmful
To weaken it, we need to justify that the location of plant in less populated area is not due to the chemical being harmful but for some other reason. This job is well executed by option B
