Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 07:05

It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 07:05

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 22
From ‘GMAT Is Not for Me’ to a 695— Beating Her Target by 50 Points
12:30 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 16
Sneak Peek: $200 Off GMAT Prep
12:00 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 23
A Non-Native’s Journey to GMAT 695 with V88 (99th percentile)
01:30 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 23
Free full-length test!
08:00 PM PDT
-
09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 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 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 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 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 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.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 3: In Country A, levels of

1 2 3 4

Navya442001

Joined: 26 Jan 2024

Last visit: 17 Nov 2025

Posts: 67

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 1

Products:

Posts: 67

Kudos: 72

[1]

18 Dec 2024, 23:56

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

12 Days of Christmas 2024 - 2025 Competition with $40,000 of Prizes

In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

(A) This says that Country A's industries are more advanced and produce less waste naturally. If that's true, it means the cleaner rivers in Country A are due to technology, not regulations. That weakens the argument.
Eliminate.

(B) Here, we’re told Country A has more natural wetlands that help filter pollution. If that’s the case, the lower pollution levels might be due to nature, not stricter regulations. That also weakens the argument.
Eliminate.

(C) This mentions that Country A invests heavily in water purification technology, which isn’t affordable for Country B. If this is why Country A has cleaner rivers, then stricter regulations might not be the solution for Country B. Again, it weakens the argument.
Eliminate.

(D) This points out that a neighboring country with similar conditions to Country B adopted similar regulations but didn’t see improvements in river pollution. If regulations don’t work in similar situations, this undermines the argument for stricter rules in Country B.
Eliminate.

(E) This says that Country B’s rivers naturally disperse pollution better because of their higher flow rate. This statement doesn’t address whether stricter regulations would help/worsen Country B’s situation. It doesn’t weaken the argument.
Correct.

SunnyPoddar

Joined: 21 Nov 2020

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 29

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 29

Kudos: 24

19 Dec 2024, 00:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

A. Weaken the argument because it deviates the topic by introducing a doubt that technological advancement could be the reason behind better cleanliness.

B. Weaken the argument by stating that natural wetlands of country A could be the reason behind better cleanliness.

C. Weaken the argument as purification technologies of country A could be the possible reason for better cleanliness.

D. It instead of weakening the argument, it challenges the assumption altogether by referring another country where no significant improvement in river pollution level was achieved even after adopting the waste disposal regulations.

E. Weaken the argument by pointing higher flow rate to be the reason behind better cleanliness.

nishantswaft

ISB School Moderator

Joined: 17 Oct 2024

Last visit: 16 Mar 2026

Posts: 159

Own Kudos:

119

[1]

Given Kudos: 18

Posts: 159

Kudos: 119

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 00:15

Kudos

Bookmarks

Question type:

EXCEPT Weaken

The argument assumes that since there are more regulations in country A, so it has significantly lower levels of river pollution and makes it a cause effect relationship.
We can weaken by showing that there is some alternate reason why this effect is seen.

Answer choice analysis:

A. Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.

Incorrect, This weakens the argument by giving an alternate reason why the level of river pollution was lower in country A.

B. Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.

Incorrect, Similar to option A, This weakens the argument by giving an alternate reason why the level of river pollution was lower in country A.

C. The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.

Incorrect, This also weakens the argument by giving an alternate reason why the level of river pollution was lower in country A.

D. After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.

Incorrect. This tells us that applying similar laws will not be effective in country B and creates a doubt on the conclusion.

E. Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

correct. If this is true we have no information about the effect the law will have on the pollution levels in the country (Could be more could be less)

E is the answer

Invincible_147

Joined: 29 Sep 2023

Last visit: 17 Apr 2026

Posts: 72

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 169

GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q77 V81 DI78 Verified score

Posts: 72

Kudos: 64

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 00:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi All,

Conclusion: Because A had more stricter regulation than B, and river pollution in A is lower than B therefore B should also impement stricter regulations.

We need an option that strengthens the conclusion or has no impact on it.

Option Analysis:

A) From this option we can get that its not about stricter regulation, because there is tech adancement in country A and that produces less waste, that could be the reason for less
river pollution rather than stricter regulations.This weakens our argument.

B) This options provides a different reason for less river pollution in country A , weakening the argument.

C)Same reason as option B

D) This option provides an example that provides indication that the plan of implementing stricter regualtion in country B would also not lead to less river pollution.Therefore weakening our argument

E) From this option we get that the flow of river is at higher rate in country B that in contry A which helps to disperse pollution more effectively. This option neither strengthens nor weakens our argument as it doesnt talk about how implementing stricter regulation like country A would be effective / not effective .And it also doesnt provide any other factor leading to the river pollution differnce in both the countries than stricter regulation. It has No impact on the argument

Therefore E is the answer.

Eswar69

Joined: 12 Jun 2024

Last visit: 24 Mar 2026

Posts: 36

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 14

Posts: 36

Kudos: 41

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 00:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

[E] is the correct answer. The prompt essentially says that due to stricter waste disposal regulations in Country A, the levels of water pollution are significantly lower when compared to Country B which only has a few regulations of industrial waste disposal.

We need to find the answer that doesn't weaken the argument as the question says "except", i.e, there are probably 4 answers that weaken the argument.
(A) This statement weakens that argument as it gives an alternate reasoning, causing there to be less production of industrial waste in Country A.
(B) This statement weakens that argument as it gives an alternate reasoning stating natural causes for there to be less water pollution in Country A.
(C) This statement weakens that argument as it gives an alternate reasoning stating expensive water purification technologies in Country A.
(D) This statement also weakens the argument as it mentions a Country (similar to Country B) has tried adoption regulations and failed to see any improvements indicating that even if Country B tried doing the same, it'll fail.
(E) This is the correct answer. This statement gives an alternate cause for the dispersal of pollutants which seems to be the main issue.

crimson_king

Joined: 21 Dec 2023

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 152

Own Kudos:

156

[1]

Given Kudos: 113

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 152

Kudos: 156

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 00:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

On analyzing each & every option below-

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B- This is a weakener as it gives us an alternative reason for why Country A is more well disposed than Country B to deal with the waste disposal in rivers. We can eliminate this option

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B-This is another weakener as it gives us an alternative reason for why Country A is more well disposed than Country B to deal with the waste disposal in rivers owing to their natural wetlands doing a better job than Country B's. We can eliminate this option as well

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B-Another alternative reason that may help explain why regulations may not help Country B's case. We can eliminate this option as well.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels- This is a very strong weakener as it is directly related to the assumption that Country A's regulation is better than Country B's in dealing with water waste disposal. Eliminate.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A-This is not a weakener as it does not address or contradict the idea that stricter regulations are the need of the hour in Country B.

Hence the correct answer to this question is option (E)

MinhChau789

Joined: 18 Aug 2023

Last visit: 12 Apr 2026

Posts: 132

Own Kudos:

140

[1]

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 132

Kudos: 140

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 02:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion: Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

We are looking for an answer that doesn't weaken the conclusion.

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
This weakens the conclusion as it adds another reason for the better pollution rate in country A, not strict policies

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
This weakens the conclusion as it adds another reason for the better pollution rate in country A , not strict policies

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
This weakens the conclusion as it adds another reason for the better pollution rate in country A , not strict policies

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.
This weakens the conclusion as it states an example of a country using stricter regulations without success

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.
This says that Country B may have another factor that may be neutral or better support country B, but it is still more polluted. This answer doesn't weaken the conclusion.

Answer: E

mpp01

Joined: 13 Dec 2024

Last visit: 08 Jun 2025

Posts: 49

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 9

Location: Spain

Posts: 49

Kudos: 48

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 02:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

Only statment which does not weaken the argument, at most, it strengthens it. Indicating country B's more favourable conditions towards having less river pollution, nonetheless still has more pollution, thus the best idea is to enforce more regulation.

Nsp10

Joined: 22 May 2023

Last visit: 30 Mar 2026

Posts: 125

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 112

Location: India

Schools: IE Schulich

GPA: 3.0

Products:

Schools: IE Schulich

Posts: 125

Kudos: 91

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 02:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal. It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

since it is a weaken Question let us first identify the conclusion and which is "Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers."
now in order to weaken it we have to show that it is the regulations that needs to fixed but there is some other reason.
now looking for options
A. Giving another reason as not the industrial regulations but Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced hence yes weakener
B. not the industrial regulations but Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system so another weakner.
C. it is water purification technologies not the industrial regulations hence another weakner
D. Same plan was imposed on another country but not much effect an example which is weakening hence another weakner
E. This option is talking about Country B's rivers which have a higher flow rate and mentions that those rivers disperses pollutants more effectively and hence they are already better so this is not weakening the conclusion
hence E option is the answer.

Purnank

Joined: 05 Jan 2024

Last visit: 18 Apr 2026

Posts: 680

Own Kudos:

613

Given Kudos: 167

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q88 V76 DI80 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q88 V76 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 680

Kudos: 613

19 Dec 2024, 03:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Argument - Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers. Why? Because Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal than Country A.

Weakens except -
(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B. - This weakens because tech is the reason for lesser waste.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B. - This weakens as new introduction of wetlands lessening pollutants.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B. - Again weakens it because technology better over regulation.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels. - This is suggesting that simply adopting similar regulations may not lead to cleaner rivers. Well it weakens but not introducing new aspect as it is needed for weakening. It just suggests that they may not be sufficient on their own. Tricky choice TBH.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A. - It clearly weakens.

Answer I think D.

seenuvasan

Joined: 15 Oct 2016

Last visit: 14 Jan 2025

Posts: 18

Own Kudos:

[1]

GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V30 Verified score

Posts: 18

Kudos: 20

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 03:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

This question is weakening, but EXCEPT (It doesn't mean Strengthen)

Conclusion: Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers.

Premise: In Country A, levels of river pollution are significantly lower than in Country B, where there are fewer regulations on industrial waste disposal.

Assumption: No other factors can help to improve the cleanliness except waste disposal regulations.

In order to weaken the argument, we need to point another factor that could improve the cleanliness or regulation won't help. But we need to choose EXCEPT

Let's look into the choices,

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
This points out another factor. It's weakening, so INCORRECT.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
This points out another factor. It's weakening, so INCORRECT.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
It's weakening, so INCORRECT.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.
By comparing neighboring country, it shows no use of regulations. It's weakening, so INCORRECT.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.
This is not Weakening. So, this is CORRECT.

For instance, if Country A's rivers have a higher flow rate than in B's, this could weaken the argument.

So E is the correct answer.

LastHero

Joined: 15 Dec 2024

Last visit: 12 Dec 2025

Posts: 134

Own Kudos:

147

[1]

Given Kudos: 1

Posts: 134

Kudos: 147

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 03:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that the lower pollution in Country A is due to advanced technology, not stricter regulations.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the cleaner rivers in Country A: natural wetlands, not regulations.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
This weakens the argument by attributing the difference in pollution levels to water purification investments, not regulations.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that stricter regulations do not necessarily lead to cleaner rivers, as shown in a comparable case.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A. CORRECT
This does not weaken the argument. It describes a characteristic of Country B’s rivers (higher flow rate), but it does not provide a reason why stricter regulations wouldn’t help improve pollution levels. It is irrelevant to the conclusion.

Answer E

Shruuuu

Joined: 21 Nov 2023

Last visit: 19 Jan 2026

Posts: 70

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 99

Location: India

Schools: ISB '27 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q83 V86 DI78 Verified score

Schools: ISB '27 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q83 V86 DI78 Verified score

Posts: 70

Kudos: 95

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 03:47

Kudos

Bookmarks

Lets eliminate one-by-one to find a choice which doesn't weaken the argument -

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B - This tells us that Country A produces less waste. So it's not that stricter regulations are helping Country A but rather the production is less in itself. So Country B applying stricter regulations may or may not reduce the waste - Eliminate (Weakner)

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B - Again a weakener as it gives us another reason why Country A has less waste in river (Similar to A) - Eliminate (Weakner)

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B - This is also another reason why implementation of stricter regulations would not work - Eliminate (Weakner)

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels - This weakens the argument by telling us stricter regulations like Country A didn't work in another country - Eliminate (Weakner)

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A - CORRECT - this tells us that the flow rate of B is already high; so implementation of the regulations might help. This doesn't weaken the argument

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

UfuomaOh

McCombs School Moderator

Joined: 14 Sep 2023

Last visit: 07 Mar 2026

Posts: 83

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 14

Posts: 83

Kudos: 50

19 Dec 2024, 04:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

The conclusion in the short passage is It is evident from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers. To Paraphrase the rivers in country B are dirty because of lax waste disposal regulations

The question Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

To weaken the argument would be to say that the Rivers in country B are dirty because of reasons other than a lax regulation

But there is an EXCEPT! this becomes confusing. Are we looking for options that do the opposite of weaken which would be to corroborate or strengthen. However, to look that way we would not be able to pick any option. Another conclusion would be to focus on an option that does not address the conclusion, so neither weakens nor strengthens

A. Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.

This weakens the argument

B. Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country

This weakens the argument

C. The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country

There is no information to suggest whether this technology is used in keeping the river clean or is used to purify the water coming from the river

D. After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.

This weakens the argument

E. Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

This weakens the argument

twinkle2311

Joined: 05 Nov 2021

Last visit: 14 Apr 2026

Posts: 150

Own Kudos:

178

Given Kudos: 21

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Real Estate

Schools: ISB '26 Wharton '26

GPA: 9.041

Products:

Schools: ISB '26 Wharton '26

Posts: 150

Kudos: 178

19 Dec 2024, 06:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument claims that stricter regulations in Country B would reduce river pollution, based on the example of Country A. The correct answer must not weaken this claim.

(A) Advanced technology in Country A reduces waste, suggesting pollution differences are due to tech, not regulations. Eliminated.
(B) Country A’s wetlands filter pollutants, providing a natural explanation for cleaner rivers. Eliminated.
(C) Country A uses costly water purification technology, unrelated to regulations. Stricter regulations in Country B could still help. Correct.
(D) Similar regulations in another country didn’t improve pollution, questioning their effectiveness. Eliminated.
(E) Country B’s rivers naturally disperse pollutants, suggesting pollution is reduced by natural factors, not regulations. Eliminated.

Correct Answer: (C)

Oppenheimer1945

Joined: 16 Jul 2019

Last visit: 16 Apr 2026

Posts: 786

Own Kudos:

663

[1]

Given Kudos: 236

Location: India

Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 7.81

Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 786

Kudos: 663

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 06:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

shoaibshariff07

Joined: 05 Jun 2024

Last visit: 26 Dec 2025

Posts: 15

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 266

Posts: 15

Kudos: 10

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 06:57

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument states that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers. The argument is based on a comparison with Country A, where river pollution is lower, and assumes that the stricter regulations in Country A are the main reason for this difference.

To weaken the argument, a statement must show that factors other than regulations could explain the difference in pollution levels, or that implementing stricter regulations might not lead to the desired improvement in Country B.

Now let’s evaluate each option:
(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.

Analysis: This weakens the argument by suggesting that lower pollution in Country A is due to technological differences, not regulations.

Result: Weakens the argument.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.

Analysis: This weakens the argument by indicating that the cleaner rivers in Country A are due to natural features, not stricter regulations.

Result: Weakens the argument.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.

Analysis: This weakens the argument by showing that the lower pollution levels in Country A are a result of water purification investments, not stricter waste regulations.

Result: Weakens the argument.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.

Analysis: This weakens the argument by providing evidence that stricter waste regulations may not actually reduce pollution levels.

Result: Weakens the argument.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

Analysis: This does not weaken the argument because it does not explain why Country B’s rivers remain polluted despite having a flow rate that disperses pollutants. It merely discusses flow characteristics but does not undermine the idea that stricter regulations might help.

Result: Does not weaken the argument.
Answer: (E)

__Poisonivy__

Joined: 24 Feb 2024

Last visit: 08 Apr 2025

Posts: 53

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 53

Kudos: 56

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 06:59

Kudos

Bookmarks

A) This undermines the argument by suggesting that the difference in pollution levels is due to the technology used and not due to the waste disposal regulations. Incorrect

B)This means that the lower pollution levels in Country A might be due to natural filtration rather than due to stricter regulations. Incorrect

C)This suggests that the lower pollution levels in Country A may be due to water purification technologies and not due to regulations. Incorrect.

D)This opt. weakens the argument by giving the evidence that implementing similar regulations might not lead to clean rivers. Incorrect

E) This opt. talks about the Country B’s natural conditions but does not challenge the need for stricter regulations to improve river cleanliness.. This directly weakens the argument. Hence Correct.

Ans-E

A_Nishith

Joined: 29 Aug 2023

Last visit: 12 Nov 2025

Posts: 452

Own Kudos:

203

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 452

Kudos: 203

19 Dec 2024, 07:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument concludes that Country B should implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers, based on the comparison with Country A. To weaken this argument, one must provide reasons other than the regulations for why Country A's rivers are less polluted.

Analysis of the answer choices:
(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.
This suggests that the lower pollution levels in Country A might be due to advanced technology rather than stricter regulations. Thus, it weakens the argument.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.
If natural wetlands are responsible for cleaner rivers in Country A, it undermines the conclusion that stricter regulations are the key factor. This weakens the argument.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.
This alternative explanation—that Country A's cleaner rivers are due to water purification investments rather than regulations—also weakens the argument.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.
This directly challenges the effectiveness of stricter waste disposal regulations, weakening the argument.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.
This does not weaken the argument. If anything, it suggests that Country B's rivers might already have a natural advantage in dispersing pollutants, which does not contradict the need for stricter regulations. It does not challenge the link between stricter regulations and improved cleanliness.

Correct Answer: (E)

missionmba2025

Joined: 07 May 2023

Last visit: 07 Sep 2025

Posts: 341

Own Kudos:

430

[1]

Given Kudos: 52

Location: India

Posts: 341

Kudos: 430

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 07:47

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

(A) Industrial facilities in Country A are technologically more advanced and inherently produce less waste than those in Country B.

This option weakens the argument as it gives us an information that counters the fact that implementing stricter waste disposal regulations will improve the cleanliness of rivers in Country B. This provides an alternate factor / reason for the lower pollution levels in Country A.

(B) Country A has a more extensive natural wetlands system that naturally filters pollutants better than the river systems in Country B.

This option weakens the argument as it gives us an information that counters the fact that implementing stricter waste disposal regulations will improve the cleanliness of rivers in Country B. This provides an alternate factor / reason for the lower pollution levels in Country A.

(C) The government of Country A invests heavily in water purification technologies that are not yet economically feasible in Country B.

This option weakens the argument as it gives us an information that counters the fact that implementing stricter waste disposal regulations will improve the cleanliness of rivers in Country B. This provides an alternate factor / reason for the lower pollution levels in Country A.

(D) After a neighboring country with similar industrial outputs as Country B adopted waste disposal regulations like those in Country A, there was no significant improvement in river pollution levels.

This option contradicts the stated plan, hence weakens the argument. If the plan didn't work in another country, it probably won't work in Country B. We can eliminate this option.

(E) Country B's rivers have a higher flow rate, which naturally disperses pollutants more effectively than the slower-moving rivers in Country A.

Correct. This option provides an advantage that Country B already has. If the high river rates disperse pollutants more effectively, yet Country B has high pollution levels, this indicates some stricter regulations are required to reduce the pollution levels.

Option E