Toxic bioaccumulation, a mining hazard induced by the mercury compound

Conclusion: spreading chalcedony in the Redstone Mine in order to preserve the surviving workers will be successful. We need find an strengthner.

Need to keep a note here that the argument is talking about surviving members. This means chalcedony must be spread after the leak is done.
This means we need to find an answer which is very effective to contain the disaster but ineffective to prevent it from happening.

Let's look at the options.

A: contender. strong indeed
B: contender. weak one because It will still have issues after 5 years
C: irrelevant
D: contender. weak one because it is not applicable in all cases
E: irrelevant

IMO A is a great choice to go with.

The answer could be arrived at through more flexible approach. Cause(introducing chalcedony) ->effect(reducing mercury leak)
Answer choice A strengthens the view that indeed cause causes effect

I am not able to decipher the argument at all.
Does it mean Chalcedony needs to be sprinkled like pesticide. Could you please take up this one ? VeritasKarishma

I still can't understand how A is correct.

The argument says Chalcedony needs to be spread to stop bioaccumulation. If Chalcedony already occurs near cinnabar ore , what is the need to spread it anyways , it should arrest bioaccumulation by default right?

Option C makes more sense to me because is gives a reason why Chalcedony needs to be spread..

what am i missing here?

What is the source of this CR? Doesn't look like an official question. The options are somewhat ambiguous and not easy to comprehend.

Premises:

- Toxins from unrefined cinnabar ore presently afflict 7 of every 10 workers in the Redstone Mine.
- A second mineral which occurs in the same environment, chalcedony, restricts the release of toxins from cinnabar ore.

Mining chemists suggest spreading chalcedony in the Redstone Mine in order to preserve the surviving workers.

We need to say that the suggestion will be successful - so spreading chalcedony will preserve the surviving workers.

A It accumulates in deposits which are concentrated in the mineral veins where cinnabar is found.

This tells us that if we spread chalcedony, it will accumulate in places where cinnabar is found. Well, then it makes it likely that it will be able to stop the toxins from releasing from cinnabar.

Another interpretation could be that it is already found concentrated in places where cinnabar is found. Then how will spreading help and hence the confusion. But since no other option helps, we should take the previous interpretation.

B It can on some occasions stay inactive in mineral veins for almost five years before it begins to spread.

Irrelevant. We are planning on spreading it ourselves. What it does normally we don't care.

C It spreads through an environment more gradually than does cinnabar in most geological settings.

The point is, if we spread it, will it preserve the health of workers? What it normally does is irrelevant.

D It does not prevent a few common varieties of cinnabar ore from releasing toxins.

This weakens our suggestion.

E It can occasionally damage fish populations by poisoning their gills.

Irrelevant.

Answer (A)

Bunuel: Source: GMAC Paper Testsx
i think this source should be removed.

This question wasted lot of time and as expert mentioned, this doesn't seem to be an official question.

please check

thanks!

A It accumulates in deposits which are concentrated in the mineral veins where cinnabar is found.
If it accumlates then it will result in higher concentration which will result in spreading the other harmful chemicals

B It can on some occasions stay inactive in mineral veins for almost five years before it begins to spread.
THis will certainly weaken since if it doesn't activate instantaneosly then the harmful chemicals will spread unchecked

C It spreads through an environment more gradually than does cinnabar in most geological settings.
more gradually is akward meaning if i infer right i guess it talks about slow spreading with inevitabily will harm the process of eradication of harmful agents

D It does not prevent a few common varieties of cinnabar ore from releasing toxins.
This will certainly weaken the cause since if common variables are not eleminated the dangerous chemicals will presist

E It can occasionally damage fish populations by poisoning their gills.
Even though it's out of context it will certainly weaken since it should be a sustainable alternative rather than affecting the environment

Therefore IMO A

Option elimination -

A It accumulates in deposits which are concentrated in the mineral veins where cinnabar is found. - ok.

B It can on some occasions stay inactive in mineral veins for almost five years before it begins to spread. - This talks about the general activity or inactivity of chalcedony. What we are concerned about is when we spread chalcedony - does it help reduce the release of toxins? This option is out of scope.

C It spreads through an environment more gradually than does cinnabar in most geological settings. - comparison of chalcedony spread with the canibar spread is irrelevant. Out of scope.

D It does not prevent a few common varieties of cinnabar ore from releasing toxins. - weakener

E It can occasionally damage fish populations by poisoning their gills. - out of scope.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.