It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 00:49

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 133 [2], given: 5

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GPA: 3.6
Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2012, 10:26
2
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

76% (01:23) correct 24% (01:26) wrong based on 173 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts of various medicinal substances in lakes and rivers. Taken in large quantities, these substances could have serious health effects, but they are present in quantities far too low to cause any physiological response in people who drink the water or bathe in it. Nevertheless, medical experts contend that eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits, since ____________.

(A) Some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers are harmless to humans if taken in large quantities

(B) Some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers can counteract possible harmful effects of other such substances found there

(C) People who develop undesirable side effects when being treated with medicines that contain these substances generally have their treatment changed

(D) Most medicinal substances that reach lakes or rivers rapidly break down into harmless substances

(E) Disease-causing bacteria exposed to low concentrations of certain medicinal substances can become resistant to them
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 133 [2], given: 5

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 351

Kudos [?]: 195 [3], given: 31

Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2012, 20:09
3
KUDOS
Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts of various medicinal substances in lakes and rivers. Taken in large quantities, these substances could have serious health effects, but they are present in quantities far too low to cause any physiological response in people who drink the water or bathe in it. Nevertheless, medical experts contend that eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits, since ____________.

C. People who develop undesirable side effects when being treated with medicines that contain these substances generally have their treatment changed
E. Disease-causing bacteria exposed to low concentrations of certain medicinal substances can become resistant to them.

C is incorrect because it has nothing to do with what we want here; basically we are searching for the information that conveys that even these small traces are harmful and hence deserves to be removed; C talks off the topic E properly identifies the required information supporting what we wanted.

Hope this helps..!!
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Kudos [?]: 195 [3], given: 31

Manager
Status: Bouncing back from failure
Joined: 08 Mar 2010
Posts: 105

Kudos [?]: 18 [2], given: 36

Schools: Wharton,MIT, Tepper, Kelly,
WE 1: 7 years- Service Managament, poject Management, Business Consultant- Retail
Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2013, 02:09
2
KUDOS
Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts of various medicinal substances in lakes and rivers. Taken in large quantities, these substances could have serious health effects, but

Situation 1- they are present in quantities far too low to cause any physiological response in people who drink the water or bathe in it.

Situation 2 - Nevertheless, medical experts contend that eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits

We need to find the solution which will resolve the paradox.

A. Some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers are harmless to humans in large quantities. I incorrect . It simply states the premise
B. Some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers can counteract possible harmful effects of other such substances found there. incorrect. Read carefully, mediccal substance counter other such substance. which is out of scope,and does not resolve the paradox
C. People who develop undesirable side effects when being treated with medicines that contain these substances generally have their treatment changed incorrect. it does not explain how eliminating these will have health benefits
D. Most medicinal substances that reach lakes or rivers rapidly break down into harmless substances incorrect, it weaken the Situation 2
E. Disease-causing bacteria exposed to low concentrations of certain medicinal substances can become resistant to them. Correct. this clearly mention how eliminating these substance will have health benefits. At the same time it question the validity of situation. Therefore, it clearly resolve the paradox.

Kudos [?]: 18 [2], given: 36

Intern
Joined: 11 Aug 2015
Posts: 7

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 52

Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2016, 13:13
1
KUDOS
Hi there,
if you break out the conclusion, you will probably find this sentence rather easy.
The conclusion states that there would be benefits in eliminating the trace amount of medicinal substances from lakes and rivers.

Option B states that the medicinal substances can counteract possible harmful effects of substances found there. Clearly, it would not be beneficial to remove something that is good for the lakes and rivers. Therefore, this answer choice is paradoxical and rather states the opposite of what should be stated.

Instead, take a look at answer choice E. This option states a disadvantage of not eliminating the medicinal substances - that the bacteria in the river may become resistant. Hence, this is the right answer choice.

elegan wrote:
Hello All,

I'm looking at this question:

-------------
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts of various medicinal substances in lakes and rivers. Taken in large quantities, these substances could have serious health effects, but they are present in quantities far too low to cause any physiological response in people who drink the water or bathe in it. Nevertheless, medical experts contend that eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits, since ____________.

(A)

some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers are harmless to humans in large quantities

(B)

some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers can counteract possible harmful effects of other such substances found there

(C)

people who develop undesirable side effects when being treated with medicines that contain these substances generally have their treatment changed

(D)

most medicinal substances that reach lakes or rivers rapidly break down into harmless substances

(E)

disease-causing bacteria exposed to low concentrations of certain medicinal substances can become resistant to them

We are essentially looking for an answer that favours the removal of such medicinal substances.

I saw (C) and (E) as such examples. However, why would E be considered a stronger choice than C?

Best Greetings.

Could someone explain why B is incorrect?

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 52

VP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1347

Kudos [?]: 641 [0], given: 20

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2012, 11:22
You've got it the other way round. You must choose the option that helps to establish that eliminating these substances from the water WILL have health benefits.

(B) provides an argument to let the substances stay, i.e. not remove them. Exactly the opposite of what we are looking for. Irrelevant.
(E) provides a clear explanation for why removing these substances will have health benefits.

Therefore (E) is correct.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Kudos [?]: 641 [0], given: 20

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 19

Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2012, 20:00
stuck with C why is it incorrect ?

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 19

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1219

Kudos [?]: 1658 [0], given: 116

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2012, 04:09
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The argument only speaks about the effects of the medicine present in the water. Option C speaks about the medicines used when treating patients. Hence it is completely out of scope. It only creates an illusion of staying close to the argument by using similar words.

E speaks directly about low concentrations of the medicine. The argument says that the medicine found in the water supply is of low concentration. So E stays close to the argument. Hence E is the right answer.

Kudos Please... If my post helped.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Kudos [?]: 1658 [0], given: 116

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10118

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Dec 2015, 15:06
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 80

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 48

Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2015, 17:30
elegan wrote:
Hello All,

I'm looking at this question:

-------------
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts of various medicinal substances in lakes and rivers. Taken in large quantities, these substances could have serious health effects, but they are present in quantities far too low to cause any physiological response in people who drink the water or bathe in it. Nevertheless, medical experts contend that eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits, since ____________.

(A)

some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers are harmless to humans in large quantities

(B)

some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers can counteract possible harmful effects of other such substances found there

(C)

people who develop undesirable side effects when being treated with medicines that contain these substances generally have their treatment changed

(D)

most medicinal substances that reach lakes or rivers rapidly break down into harmless substances

(E)

disease-causing bacteria exposed to low concentrations of certain medicinal substances can become resistant to them

We are essentially looking for an answer that favours the removal of such medicinal substances.

I saw (C) and (E) as such examples. However, why would E be considered a stronger choice than C?

Best Greetings.

C is wrong. If people have their treatment changed, then there is no need of removing the traces.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 48

Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 14

Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2016, 06:42
Conclusion: eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits
Answer choice : Should strengthen the conclusion

A. Some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers are harmless to humans in large quantities.
Not related. On the contrary this negates the premise stated in the argument.
B. Some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers can counteract possible harmful effects of other such substances found there.
This says that having these substances is beneficial because they counteract possible harmful effects of other substances.
Leaving out these substances actually weakens the conclusion (since conclusion is to eliminate these trace amounts)

C. People who develop undesirable side effects when being treated with medicines that contain these substances generally have their treatment changed
We can say that this is already known from the argument since large quantities pose serious health effects. This choice continues further to say that if medicines have large amount then the treatment needs to be changed as they post serious health effects
D. Most medicinal substances that reach lakes or rivers rapidly break down into harmless substances
This also weakens the conclusion, because, if the trace amounts breakdown and become harmless, then there is no need to eliminate
E. Disease-causing bacteria exposed to low concentrations of certain medicinal substances can become resistant to them.
If disease causing bacteria becomes resistant, then there will be health risks to the public. This is because at the moment these trace amounts are killing the bacteria and hence are not a problem now. If not eliminated, might make the bacteria resistant resulting in health issues. Hence strengthens the conclusion.

Thanks
_________________

Once you know the answer, it is easy to justify.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 14

Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1193

GMAT 1: 490 Q41 V18
GPA: 2.75
Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2016, 12:01
elegan wrote:
Hello All,

I'm looking at this question:

-------------
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts of various medicinal substances in lakes and rivers. Taken in large quantities, these substances could have serious health effects, but they are present in quantities far too low to cause any physiological response in people who drink the water or bathe in it. Nevertheless, medical experts contend that eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits, since ____________.

(A)

some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers are harmless to humans in large quantities

(B)

some of the medicinal substances found in lakes and rivers can counteract possible harmful effects of other such substances found there

(C)

people who develop undesirable side effects when being treated with medicines that contain these substances generally have their treatment changed

(D)

most medicinal substances that reach lakes or rivers rapidly break down into harmless substances

(E)

disease-causing bacteria exposed to low concentrations of certain medicinal substances can become resistant to them

We are essentially looking for an answer that favours the removal of such medicinal substances.

I saw (C) and (E) as such examples. However, why would E be considered a stronger choice than C?

Best Greetings.

Could someone explain why B is incorrect?
_________________

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1193

Re: Using new detection techniques, researchers have found trace amounts o   [#permalink] 24 Apr 2016, 12:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by