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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Want to score 90 percentile or higher on GMAT CR? Attend this free webinar to learn how to pre-think assumptions and solve the most challenging questions in less than 2 minutes.
Want to solve 700+ level Algebra questions within 2 minutes? Attend this free webinar to learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Values questions in GMAT
Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Apr 2012, 19:53
5
15
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
25% (medium)
Question Stats:
77% (01:43) correct 23% (01:59) wrong based on 1162 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants. The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.
The author is arguing that ____.
A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence d) to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals e) benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Mar 2013, 19:08
5
1
Hi mun
let me say some thoughts about this question to help you.
1) this is not an assumtpion question, because based on two things (the word that at the and of the question stem ND the mood of the question) this is NOT an assumption question but rather an INFERENCE or MUST BE TRUE question.
2) I suggest you to to go to this topic and go step-by-step throughout the post to improve you Cr skills
This is because if on one hand is useful to post here you questions (we are happy to help you) on the other hand if you do not take control, if you do not have the tools to crack the questions (i. e. study a lot) you do not have a clear compass about: where you go, how attack the question, an efficient strategy to use, and so on....I hope you know what I mean
Now back to the question
Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants.
Ok here we have a fact that the governement wants to make effective
The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal.
here we have the purpose of the proposal and the fact that the industry itself should control the implementation of a plan
If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.
basically here is stated this: IF the industry control all the situation we will not have benefits; the opposite: we will have worst effects. So from this we can deduce that the industry is not able to do nothing by itself(in a few words)
The author is arguing that ____.
(INFERNCE)
(A)no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal
too extreme as answer and we are not completely sure of this
(B)the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air
About this statistic we haven't enough indformation
(C)allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence
This is what, precisely, I said in the stimulus. The industry, if it pursues the implementation of the proposal , then the same is not able to do nothing without the engagement of the gov. perfect. correct
(D)to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals
Is not what we care about. the goverment
(E)benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals
The chemicals are not our concern
C is indeed the correct answer
Hope this helps you to comprehend better the whole situation _________________
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Sep 2012, 10:48
GetThisDone wrote:
Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants. The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air. The author is arguing that ____. A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence d) to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals e) benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals
I was tied b/w option C & D. Option C states the event of "intent going opposite" WILL happen instead of "could" happen. It ignores the if-then condition(in stimulus) and jumps to "then" part.
So why C could be correct?
If the author goes in the similar sense then option D should also be correct.
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Sep 2012, 04:55
navigator123 wrote:
GetThisDone wrote:
Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants. The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air. The author is arguing that ____. A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence d) to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals e) benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals
I was tied b/w option C & D. Option C states the event of "intent going opposite" WILL happen instead of "could" happen. It ignores the if-then condition(in stimulus) and jumps to "then" part.
So why C could be correct?
If the author goes in the similar sense then option D should also be correct.
Can anyone help by explaining this question?
c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence --> as the argument talks about self monitoring and if implementation is given to chemical industry we will have more carcinogens released in air. This aptly answers the question.
d) to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals--> to extreme and uses strong words .. so it cannot be correct
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Sep 2012, 07:52
1
navigator123 wrote:
GetThisDone wrote:
Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants. The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air. The author is arguing that ____. A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence d) to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals e) benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals
I was tied b/w option C & D. Option C states the event of "intent going opposite" WILL happen instead of "could" happen. It ignores the if-then condition(in stimulus) and jumps to "then" part.
So why C could be correct?
If the author goes in the similar sense then option D should also be correct.
Can anyone help by explaining this question?
First of all, this is a CR question not an SC. (Just kidding)
You must flow with the stem while reading the options. Here the author is ARGUING, arguing what? Something which is given in the stem, what is given in the stem? not option D(to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals) but our answer i.e. option C (allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence) by stating that "If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air"
Hope this helps ! _________________
First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Sep 2012, 14:35
1
1
As the question stem says, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens, when earlier it says that the purpose of the proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. So C is the correct answer, since the stem is arguing that the proposal will achieve the opposite of its purpose.
As for the other answer choices, the argument is about the effectiveness of the clean air proposal, so B and E are not right. Nor is the argument about what proportion of chemical companies will comply with the proposal, so A is not right. And the argument is specifically about self-monitoring among chemical plant polluters, and not about self-monitoring in general, so D is not right.
_________________
GMAT Tutor in Toronto
If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Social Entrepreneurship
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Sep 2012, 21:04
I don't think the author in anywhere has said the chemical companies are untrustworthy. His concern is only about their self-monitoring. So "A", "B", "D" and "E" are out.
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jul 2017, 11:46
et, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.
The author is arguing that ____.
A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence
My contention - "the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation" - how did the self monitoring element of C come into play here? The very fact that govt will release something - how does that imply self monitoring on the part of the industry? Will need some clarity on the wording. Thank you!
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Dec 2017, 17:39
Madhavi1990 wrote:
et, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.
The author is arguing that ____.
A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence
My contention - "the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation" - how did the self monitoring element of C come into play here? The very fact that govt will release something - how does that imply self monitoring on the part of the industry? Will need some clarity on the wording. Thank you!
The chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation basically means the chemical industry is responsible for taking care of the implementation to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens.
The government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens by introducing a policy but the implementation of the policy is to be monitored by the very companies that produce these harmful chemicals. Hence, self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence.
Re: Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 Dec 2017, 17:06
GetThisDone wrote:
Under a new clean air proposal, the government has decided to tighten controls on the release of certain toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, and other carcinogens, by chemical plants. The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce cancers caused by air pollution. Yet, the chemical industry, rather than the government, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the proposal. If the past actions of certain polluters in the chemical industry are any indication of future behavior, the net result of the new proposal will be an increase, rather than a decrease, in carcinogens released into the air.
The author is arguing that ____.
A) no chemical companies can be trusted to follow the clean air proposal b) the chemical industry is responsible for releasing the majority of carcinogens into the air c) allowing self-monitoring for the new clean air proposal will result in the opposite of its intended consequence d) to ensure effective implementation, the government should always monitor the execution of its proposals e) benzene and formaldehyde are two of the most hazardous cancer-causing chemicals
A is wrong because the author was not absolute in his assertion that no chemical companies can be trusted. Based off the text, he suggests the industry as a whole, but not absolutely every single chemical company can not be trusted. B is suggested but that is only a part of the argument, not the main point. D is wrong, because the question does not ask what the author is implying; this is unstated and therefore would be an implication, or argument assumption that is outside of the text. Also, it makes an "always" assertion which should be a red flag for you. E is true but not the main argument, its just a set of facts that the author uses.
The answer is C because it summarizes the author's argument succinctly. C also expresses the argument clearly, without jumping to extremes; using neutral language, this answer choice is the best pick.
close
77% (01:43) correct 
(Just kidding)
