V39-06

Question

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.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

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.

A. Incorrect. This weakens the argument by suggesting that the difference in pollution levels is due to technological advancements, not regulatory differences.
 
B. Incorrect. This answer choice weakens the case for adopting similar regulations in Country B by attributing Country A’s lower pollution levels to its natural geography rather than its regulatory environment.
 
C. Incorrect. This suggests that lower pollution levels in Country A are due to government investment in expensive purification technologies, not stricter regulations.
 
D. Incorrect. Weakens the argument by showing that similar regulations in a comparable country did not lead to improved pollution levels, implying that stricter regulations in Country B may not have the desired effect.
 
 E. Correct Answer  - this option not only does not weaken but quite the opposite, strengthens the argument by telling us that the comparison of pollutants in rivers of Country A and B are actually not apples to apples, and that the situation is actually worse in Country B, as it has faster flowing rivers, which should disperse pollutants faster and since they are not (we are told the pollution level is higher in the setup), this supports the argument and at minimum does not weaken it.

Answer: E

kdipayan · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. Pollutants in rivers of Country A and B are author's premise and has to be respected as true. The argument concludes that "...from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers".

Hence Option A actually weakens the conclusion without challenging the author's premise - Country A technologically more advanced and hence produces less waste which is in lines with author's premise. Hence introducing similar regulatory norms like country A is not going to have the same impact - this weakens the conclusion.

However, Option E directly challenges the author's premise!!

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

kdipayan

Lets look into the argument

There two countries India(A) and Bangladesh(B)

1. Finding 1- River pollution in India << river pollution in Bangladesh

2. Finding 2- Industrial waster disposal Regulations in India >> Industrial waster disposal Regulations in Bangladesh

Author's conclusion Imposing stricter Regulations related to waste disposal will lead to improvement in cleanliness of river.

We need to find odd one out Option which doesn't weakens the conclusion and rest other somewhat weakens or create a doubt on conclusion.

What the author must be assuming before concluding. He might be mistaking the correlation with a causation. What if Bangladesh has already those stricter rules which is effective in cleanliness but the reason for pollution level is something else like

A. Industries are dumping via pipeline to other river which is not in Bangladesh but that river ultimately flows mixes into the Bangladesh river. I know this way too superficial but still possible we dont need to go into actual geopolitics.

B. What if in India industries along with rules doing something else. We just need to find any other reason for weakening the conclusion that even though they will impose the stricter rule the cleanliness won't improve.

Lets evaluate option choices

A. It says Industrial facilities in A are more advanced and produced less waste in comparison to B. Yes it can be the reason to doubt the reasoning of author because the cause is not rules. So eliminate

B. Again it presents another reason for reducing the pollutants because of presence of natural filters. So eliminate

C. Govt initiatives in A is helping in reducing the pollutants which requires hefty funding and not feasible for B currently. Weak currency right. So eliminate

D. Ohh nice implementation same regulation in similar country of B in terms of pollution and sorry no luck. So Regulations is not the reason. So eliminate.

E. What B's rivers flow rate is high and helping to disperse pollutants effectively than A's rivers flowrate, then the B would have added advantage to reduce the pollution However the industries are generating so much waste that the river flow rate is not helping and so we need stricter rules. But the question is about weaking however this strengthen our argument proves the reasoning is correct. So this one is not weakening

Do let me know if this clears your doubt.

kdipayan

I don’t quite agree with the solution. Pollutants in rivers of Country A and B are author's premise and has to be respected as true. The argument concludes that "...from this comparison that Country B needs to implement stricter waste disposal regulations to improve the cleanliness of its rivers".

Hence Option A actually weakens the conclusion without challenging the author's premise - Country A technologically more advanced and hence produces less waste which is in lines with author's premise. Hence introducing similar regulatory norms like country A is not going to have the same impact - this weakens the conclusion.

However, Option E directly challenges the author's premise!!

bhanu29 · Answer

I don't think Option E directly challenges the author's premise.

Despite having higher flow rate, more effective pollutant dispersion, the rivers in Country B is still more polluted than Country A. the author's premise is still true. That's the reason why this answer choice strengthens the conclusion and therefore the correct answer choice.

Hope that helps.

V39-06

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards