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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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 2512:30 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 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.
26 Mar 2026, 23:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (02:30) correct
35%
(02:40)
wrong
based on 167
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In most industrial waste products that contain the toxic chemical XTX, the concentration of this chemical is approximately 1,000 parts per million. A federal law intended to reduce the harm that can result from the introduction of XTX into the environment permits a company to dispose of these waste products in a dump for hazardous waste, but only if the concentration of XTX is below 500 parts per million. Waste products with concentrations above that level must be destroyed by incineration. The law further specifies that manufacturers may not dilute XTX containing waste products to bring their concentration of XTX down to a permissible level for dumping.
Which one of the following, if true, argues most strongly for the inclusion of the anti-dilution provision of the law?
(A) If improperly incinerated, waste products containing undiluted concentrations of XTX can release into the environment a gaseous form of the chemical that is more than twice as toxic as XTX is in its usual liquid state.
(B) If present in the environment in sufficient quantities, the diluted XTX is as harmful as the more concentrated XTX.
(C) When XTX is exposed to sunlight and oxygen, it eventually breaks down into a number of components that individually and collectively carry no risk of environmental harm.
(D) Most owners of dumps for hazardous waste are willing to accept XTX for disposal in their facilities only in concentrations below 800 parts per million.
(E) To manufacturers, the cost of diluting and disposing of waste products containing XTX is approximately the same as the cost of destroying these products by incineration.
Which one of the following, if true, argues most strongly for the inclusion of the anti-dilution provision of the law?
(A) If improperly incinerated, waste products containing undiluted concentrations of XTX can release into the environment a gaseous form of the chemical that is more than twice as toxic as XTX is in its usual liquid state.
(B) If present in the environment in sufficient quantities, the diluted XTX is as harmful as the more concentrated XTX.
(C) When XTX is exposed to sunlight and oxygen, it eventually breaks down into a number of components that individually and collectively carry no risk of environmental harm.
(D) Most owners of dumps for hazardous waste are willing to accept XTX for disposal in their facilities only in concentrations below 800 parts per million.
(E) To manufacturers, the cost of diluting and disposing of waste products containing XTX is approximately the same as the cost of destroying these products by incineration.
27 Mar 2026, 02:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
In most industrial waste products that contain the toxic chemical XTX, the concentration of this chemical is approximately 1,000 parts per million. A federal law intended to reduce the harm that can result from the introduction of XTX into the environment permits a company to dispose of these waste products in a dump for hazardous waste, but only if the concentration of XTX is below 500 parts per million. Waste products with concentrations above that level must be destroyed by incineration. The law further specifies that manufacturers may not dilute XTX containing waste products to bring their concentration of XTX down to a permissible level for dumping.
Which one of the following, if true, argues most strongly for the inclusion of the anti-dilution provision of the law?
The point is that the anti-dilution provision makes sense only if diluting XTX does not really reduce the environmental harm in any important way. So the best answer is the one showing that lower concentration alone does not make disposal safer.
(A) If improperly incinerated, waste products containing undiluted concentrations of XTX can release into the environment a gaseous form of the chemical that is more than twice as toxic as XTX is in its usual liquid state.
This does not support the anti-dilution provision. If anything, it makes incineration look more dangerous, which could count against the law’s overall approach.
(B) If present in the environment in sufficient quantities, the diluted XTX is as harmful as the more concentrated XTX.
This is the best answer. It directly supports the anti-dilution rule by showing that dilution only lowers concentration, not the total harm. If diluted XTX is still just as harmful when enough of it enters the environment, then companies should not be allowed to make dumping legal just by adding other material.
(C) When XTX is exposed to sunlight and oxygen, it eventually breaks down into a number of components that individually and collectively carry no risk of environmental harm.
This weakens the need for strict disposal limits rather than supporting the anti-dilution provision.
(D) Most owners of dumps for hazardous waste are willing to accept XTX for disposal in their facilities only in concentrations below 800 parts per million.
This is not relevant. The legal limit is 500 parts per million, and the issue is why dilution to get below that limit should be banned.
(E) To manufacturers, the cost of diluting and disposing of waste products containing XTX is approximately the same as the cost of destroying these products by incineration.
This does not justify the anti-dilution provision. Even if the costs are similar, that does not show why dilution should be prohibited.
Answer: (B)
Which one of the following, if true, argues most strongly for the inclusion of the anti-dilution provision of the law?
The point is that the anti-dilution provision makes sense only if diluting XTX does not really reduce the environmental harm in any important way. So the best answer is the one showing that lower concentration alone does not make disposal safer.
(A) If improperly incinerated, waste products containing undiluted concentrations of XTX can release into the environment a gaseous form of the chemical that is more than twice as toxic as XTX is in its usual liquid state.
This does not support the anti-dilution provision. If anything, it makes incineration look more dangerous, which could count against the law’s overall approach.
(B) If present in the environment in sufficient quantities, the diluted XTX is as harmful as the more concentrated XTX.
This is the best answer. It directly supports the anti-dilution rule by showing that dilution only lowers concentration, not the total harm. If diluted XTX is still just as harmful when enough of it enters the environment, then companies should not be allowed to make dumping legal just by adding other material.
(C) When XTX is exposed to sunlight and oxygen, it eventually breaks down into a number of components that individually and collectively carry no risk of environmental harm.
This weakens the need for strict disposal limits rather than supporting the anti-dilution provision.
(D) Most owners of dumps for hazardous waste are willing to accept XTX for disposal in their facilities only in concentrations below 800 parts per million.
This is not relevant. The legal limit is 500 parts per million, and the issue is why dilution to get below that limit should be banned.
(E) To manufacturers, the cost of diluting and disposing of waste products containing XTX is approximately the same as the cost of destroying these products by incineration.
This does not justify the anti-dilution provision. Even if the costs are similar, that does not show why dilution should be prohibited.
Answer: (B)
30 Mar 2026, 07:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
I was stuck between B and D but chose D over B for the following reasons, would appreciate if anyone could show me where my reasoning is off.
- (B) If present in the environment in sufficient quantities, the diluted XTX is as harmful as the more concentrated XTX- this does seem correct but what's to say that diluted XTX is present in the environment in sufficient quantities at all? This implies it's possible that insufficient/low quantities of diluted XTX don't have any difference on the environment at all, which isn't necessarily strong enough to bring an anti-dilution provision
- (D) Most owners of dumps for hazardous waste are willing to accept XTX for disposal in their facilities only in concentrations below 800 parts per million- if most owners are comfortable with just 800 ppm opposed to the 500 ppm limit, then companies have more incentive to dilute their waste products to reach this limit. The anti-dilution provision would ensure that companies don't use this workaround to dispose rather than incinerate.
- (B) If present in the environment in sufficient quantities, the diluted XTX is as harmful as the more concentrated XTX- this does seem correct but what's to say that diluted XTX is present in the environment in sufficient quantities at all? This implies it's possible that insufficient/low quantities of diluted XTX don't have any difference on the environment at all, which isn't necessarily strong enough to bring an anti-dilution provision
- (D) Most owners of dumps for hazardous waste are willing to accept XTX for disposal in their facilities only in concentrations below 800 parts per million- if most owners are comfortable with just 800 ppm opposed to the 500 ppm limit, then companies have more incentive to dilute their waste products to reach this limit. The anti-dilution provision would ensure that companies don't use this workaround to dispose rather than incinerate.
