No one is eager to touch off the kind of hysteria that preceded the go

Question

Aristotle RC 99 - Passage 9     
   No one is eager to touch off the kind of hysteria that preceded the government‘s decision to move against Alar, the growth regulator once used by apple growers. When celebrities like Meryl Streep spoke out against Alar and the press fanned public fears, some schools and parents rushed to pluck apples out of the mouths of children. Yet all this happened before scientists had reached any consensus about Alar‘s dangers.

Rhetoric about dioxin may push the same kind of emotional buttons. The chemical becomes relatively concentrated in fat-rich foods—including human breast milk. Scientists estimate that a substantial fraction of an individual‘s lifetime burden of dioxin—as much as 12%— is accumulated during the first year of life. Nonetheless, the benefits of breast-feeding infants, the EPA and most everyone else would agree, far outweigh the hazards. Now environmentalists say dioxin and scores of other chemicals pose a threat to human fertility—as scary an issue as any policymakers have faced.

But in the absence of conclusive evidence, what are policymakers to do? What measure can they take to handle a problem whose magnitude is unknown? Predictably, attempts to  whipsaw public opinion  have already begun. Corporate lobbyists urge that action be put on hold until science resolves the unanswered questions. Environmentalists argue that evidence for harm is too strong to permit delay. This issue is especially tough because the chemicals under scrutiny are found almost everywhere.

Since many of them contain chlorine or are by-products of processes involving chlorine compounds, the environmental group Greenpeace has demanded a ban on all industrial uses of chlorine. The proposal seems appealingly simple, but it would be economically wrenching for companies and consumers alike. With the escalating rhetoric, many professionals in the risk-assessment business are worried that once again emotion rather than common sense will drive the political process. ―There is no free lunch,‖ observes Tammy Tengs, a public-health specialist at Duke University. ―When someone spends money in one place, that money is not available to spend on other things.‖ She and her colleagues have calculated that tuberculosis treatment can extend a person‘s life by a year for less than $10,000—surely a reasonable price tag. By contrast, extending a life by a year through asbestos removal costs nearly $2 million, since relatively few people would die if the asbestos were left in place. That kind of benefit-risk analysis all too rarely informs the decisions made by government regulators.

As the EPA raises anew the dangers of dioxin, the agency needs to communicate its findings to the public in a calm and clear fashion. John Graham, director of the Harvard Centre for Risk Analysis, suggests that people should strive to keep the perils posed by dioxin in perspective and remember other threats that are more easily averted. ―Phantom risks and real risks compete not only for our resources but also for our attention,‖ Graham observes. ―It‘s a shame when a mother worries about toxic chemicals, and yet her kids are running around unvaccinated and without bicycle helmets.  
 1 
 D 
 1. If it appeared in an article that the author read, he would most strongly agree with which of the following statements?

A. Asbestos and radon have caused serious health problems in the past that many government officials chose to ignore.
B. Dioxin is the foremost threat to human fertility and needs to be addressed in order to prevent serious health problems in the future.
C. Environmental groups and corporate lobbyists often take polarized stances which eventually are modified by governmental agencies.
D. Thorough research and investigation of environmental problems should be performed by the government before any unnecessary hysteria spreads throughout the public.
E. The mayor of a city has decided to ban the use of dioxins by industries in that city

2 
 C 
 2. According to the passage, it is dangerous to react drastically to recently posed health hazards for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:

A. proven precautions are overlooked.
B. public fear leads to irrational action.
C. insurance premiums will increase.
D. economic burdens can occur.
E. emotion should not be allowed to overtake common sense

3 
 B 
 3. In the context of the passage, the author uses the term ―whipsaw public opinion ( Highlighted ) to refer to:

A. changing the needs of the community.
B. convincing citizens to accept a polarized viewpoint on health hazards.
C. offering a variety of alternatives for health hazards.
D. acting irrationally in response to government policy.
E. convincing citizens to take decisions lacking in common sense

4 
 C 
 4. The primary aim of the passage is

A. to strongly discourage the use of dioxins by industries
B. to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the continued use of dioxins
C. to argue that the problems associated with dioxins may have been overestimated
D. to assert that the opponents of the use of dioxins are exaggerating the problem for their own benefit
E. to call for a ban on the use of all dioxins

RC Butler 2021  -  Practice Two RC Questions Everyday.   
Passage # 102 Date: 12-Mar-2021
 This question is a part of RC Butler 2021 .  Click here for Details

Gmatsaiyan · Accepted Answer

Topic and Scope  - The author discusses the threat posed by dioxin and suggests that fears about the toxin may be overblown.
 Mapping the Passage 
¶1 provides an example of another case of hysteria over a toxin that outran scientific knowledge.
¶2 states that some claim that dioxin is a threat and that the reaction to dioxin may also be overly emotional.
¶3 rhetorically asks if there can be any meaningful response.
¶4 describes responses to the dioxin threat, expresses skepticism at some environmentalists‘ proposals, and suggests that common sense and risk analysis should guide decisions about threats.
¶5 quotes an authority to argue that levels of risk should be kept in perspective.

sandysilva · Answer

Hi carcass. Can you please enlighten us more on why do you think the passage is not good enough?

The reason I ask is I am practicing from the same source and would need a suggestion whether continue practicing or quit the source.

Thanks in advance.

ashu2503 · Answer

Could someone explain question2 please?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

2. According to the passage, it is dangerous to react drastically to recently posed health hazards for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:

Difficulty Level:   600

Explanation

Look for an answer choice that either contradicts something that the author says about reactions or simply isn‘t included in the passage.  (C)  fits the latter: the author never mentions the effect of drastic reactions on insurance premiums.

(A):  Opposite. This is the point made in the last paragraph: it‘s more effective to worry about safety methods that have been proven to improve safety.

(B):  Opposite. This can be inferred from various statements in the passage: the author believes that drastic reactions generally represent irrational thought that can itself be dangerous if it leads to the neglect of proven safety measures.

(C):  The correct answer

(D):  Opposite. The author makes this point in  Paragraph 4.

(E): "Emotions"  are not within the scope of the passage

Answer: C

aryaman7011 · Answer

Someone please explain Q2, seems like the question's options are incorrect

HarshZsssh · Answer

q4 confused between A&C can anyone can explain

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

No one is eager to touch off the kind of hysteria that preceded the go

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

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

No one is eager to touch off the kind of hysteria that preceded the go

Prep Toolkit

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