Regulations will not allow a pesticide that is toxic to humans to be u

Question

Regulations will not allow a pesticide that is toxic to humans to be used inside houses unless the pesticide will dissipate completely from the air within eight hours after its application. One test that pesticide manufacturers standardly use to determine how quickly anti-termite pesticides dissipate involves spraying the pesticides on the walls of room-sized plywood boxes and then timing its dissipation.

Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate whether a dissipation time of just under eight hours on the manufacturers’ test indicates that an antitermite pesticide that is toxic to humans obeys regulations for use in houses?

(A) Whether anti-termite pesticides dissipate more slowly in furnished rooms than in plywood boxes

(B) Whether people who apply anti-termite pesticide standardly wear protective equipment that prevents them from being exposed to the pesticide

(C) Whether people whose house is being treated with anti-termite pesticide generally know that they should remain out of their house during the hours immediately after the pesticide’s application

(D) Whether there are anti-termite pesticides that are toxic to humans that, when subjected to the manufacturers’ test, dissipate completely from the air in the boxes in well under eight hours

(E) Whether anti-termite pesticides that are not toxic to humans tend to take longer to dissipate than those that are toxic

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

'Useful to evaluate' is a tricky question type in GMAT. You need to understand the stimulus and question thoroughly.

Stimulus:
A toxic pesticide can be used inside houses only if it dissipates within 8 hrs.
One test used to determine this involves spraying room sized plywood boxes and timing it.
(So basically, instead of spraying in an actual room, pesticide is sprayed in a room sized box and timed.)

Question: In case a pesticide does have a dissipation time of just under 8 hrs on the test, can it be used in houses? In order to answer this question which of the following will be useful to evaluate? (What I am thinking at this point is that I might need to know whether  there is any difference between rate of dissipation in a plywood box and in an actual room )

A. Whether anti-termite pesticides dissipate more slowly in furnished rooms than in plywood boxes
 Yes, I need to know this. If a pesticide has a dissipation time of just under 8 hrs, I need to know if it will take more time to dissipate in an actual furnished room. If it will take more time, it may not be allowed in houses. If it will take the same time, it may be allowed in houses. So this is useful to evaluate.

B. Whether people who apply anti-termite pesticide standardly wear protective equipment that prevents them from being exposed to the pesticide
Has nothing to do with rate of dissipation.

C. Whether people whose house is being treated with anti-termite pesticide generally know that they should remain out of their house during the hours immediately after the pesticide’s application
Has nothing to do with rate of dissipation.

D. Whether there are anti-termite pesticides that are toxic to humans that, when subjected to the manufacturers’ test, dissipate completely from the air in the boxes in well under eight hours
Whether such pesticides exist or not doesn't matter. I am concerned about that fact that if a pesticide does pass the test, can it be used in houses?

E. Whether anti-termite pesticides that are not toxic to humans tend to take longer to dissipate than those that are toxic
The argument has nothing to do with non toxic pesticides.

Raths · Answer

if the pesticide dissipated more slowly in the furnished room than that would not solve the purpose of testing it . On the
other hand , if it dissipated faster in the furnished room , then it safer for humans.
Therefore taking two extreme stance has effect on the conclusion and therefore it is A.

hsbinfy · Answer

clearly A which satisfies what the argument wants.

Rest all other choices are irrelaevant with the argument looked closely.

-h

Amit1408GMAThunk · Answer

Regulations will not allow a pesticide that is toxic to humans to be used inside houses
unless the pesticide will dissipate completely from the air within eight hours after its
application. One test that pesticide manufacturers standardly use to determine how
quickly anti-termite pesticides dissipate involves spraying the pesticides on the walls of
room-sized plywood boxes and then timing its dissipation.

Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate whether a
dissipation time of just under eight hours on the manufacturers’ test indicates that an antitermite
pesticide that is toxic to humans obeys regulations for use in houses?

A. Whether anti-termite pesticides dissipate more slowly in furnished rooms than in
plywood boxes
B. Whether people who apply anti-termite pesticide standardly wear protective
equipment that prevents them from being exposed to the pesticide
C. Whether people whose house is being treated with anti-termite pesticide generally
know that they should remain out of their house during the hours immediately after the pesticide’s application
D. Whether there are anti-termite pesticides that are toxic to humans that, when
subjected to the manufacturers’ test, dissipate completely from the air in the boxes
in well under eight hours
E. Whether anti-termite pesticides that are not toxic to humans tend to take longer to
dissipate than those that are toxic.

Thank God i got it correct this time. It is Option A.

Assumption question type and Evaluate question type have one thing in common i.e. an implied premise or a bridge between premise and conclusion.

In this question, Option A forms a bridge between the Most Important Premise and the conclusion. Lets evaluate all the options thoroughly:-

Option B:- Out of scope - as for the anti-termite pesticides that are toxic to humans to pass the test, there is no mention that the people should be wearing any 
 protective equipment.

Option C:- Out of scope - People awareness is also not a part of the premise. The litmus test is whether the pesticide dissipates before 8 hrs of application.

Option D:- Out of Scope - Regulators do not care if there are no such pesticides that exist in the market or no. Even if they do not exist, it is not their business.

Option E:- Out of Scope - The argument does not talk about the pesticides that are not toxic to humans. We are only concerned with the pesticides that are toxic to 
 humans.

Option A:- This is exactly our concern and hence the right answer choice - The most important premise states that the regulators test the pesticide on 4 sided plywood walls, then will it be similar to the houses i.e. <= 8 hrs where pesticides shall be applied. If yes, then argument falls apart, if no then argument holds.

Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

Hope the above helps!!!

Thanks.

aj33 · Answer

I got stuck between A and D but picked A because i realized that i needed to know the test done is correct or not . Is there any way to provev the test wrong. and then it came to me that A is the answer

Nunuboy1994 · Answer

Basically what this question is which one of these answer presents a question that challenges the validity of the study conducted? A is absolutely important because if the antipesticide dissipates more slowly on furnished rooms then the results of the study are not accurate.

A

pra1785 · Answer

I got this question wrong on the first attempt but when you read the question stem carefully and see what it is actually asking, you will be able to eliminate all the wrong answer choices. The question stem is very narrow and specific here to help you pick the right answer

meenakshimiyer · Answer

A. If a pesticide has a dissipation time of just under 8 hrs, we need to know if it will take more time to dissipate in an actual furnished room. If it will take more time, it may not be allowed in houses. If it will take the same time, it may be allowed in houses. So this is useful to evaluate. Hence, A is the answer.
B. This statement has no relevance to the dissipation time of the pesticide.
C. This statement holds no relevance to the rate of dissipation of the pesticide.
D. Whether such pesticides exist or not doesn't matter. We are concerned about that fact that if a pesticide does pass the test, can it be used in houses?
E. The argument has nothing to do with non-toxic pesticides.

nosaj · Answer

How I broke down the argument?
- Law: Toxic pesticides must go away in <8 hrs or else they can't be used in homes
- Other Info.: Manufacturer test with plywood boxes
- Re-framed question: If the dissipation time is 7hrs 59mins, will this toxic pesticide pass the regulation and be allowed to be used in homes

A. Answer - If it take more time in a furnished room in a house (i.e. with a couch, with chairs and tables) - it will not pass the regulation. Thus, we need to know this. 
B. What people wear when they apply the pesticide is NOT RELEVANT to evaluating if this new pesticide meets regulation
C. How homeowner interpret instructions is NOT RELEVANT to evaluating if this new pesticide meets regulation
D. A potential impostor answer, as it draws our attention to comparing the NEW pesticide with other toxic pesticides and their dissipation rate but this does not help prove if our NEW pesticide will pass regulation.
E. Omit because it would not be fair to compare a TOXIC pesticide with NON-TOXIC - how would this help us at all?

Mantrix · Answer

P1: Regulations will not allow P that is toxic to be used inside house unless P will disappear within 8 hours of it’s application.
P2: Test that used to determine how quickly it disappear, involve spraying the P on the walls of room-sized Plywood boxes and then timing.

Evaluate, if this gives the correct results?

A. Yes, as what if there is the time difference in disappearance then this test is of no use.
B. Not relevant
C. Not relevant
D. If test results show positive result, that doesn't mean that the test if perfect we need to evaluate the test.
E. Not relevant, no speak of the toxic one.

So correct answer: A

egmat · Answer

In this question, you're essentially being asked to spot the gap between what the manufacturers are testing and what the regulation actually requires. Let me walk you through how to think about this systematically.

Let's Break Down What's Happening:

1. Understand the Regulatory Requirement 
The passage tells you that toxic pesticides can only be used in houses if they dissipate completely within 8 hours. Notice the key word here:  houses . The regulation is about real-world houses where people live.

2. Identify the Testing Method 
Now, how do manufacturers test this? They spray pesticides in room-sized plywood boxes and time the dissipation. So here's your first red flag—the test environment (empty plywood boxes) might not match the real environment (actual furnished houses).

3. Spot the Gap 
The question asks: If a pesticide dissipates in "just under eight hours" in the plywood box test, does that mean it obeys regulations for real houses? Here's what you need to see:  we're assuming the test conditions accurately represent real house conditions . But do they?

4. Think About What Would Matter 
To evaluate whether this test result is valid, you need to know if there's a difference between how pesticides dissipate in plywood boxes versus real houses. If pesticides dissipate  more slowly  in furnished rooms than in plywood boxes, then "just under 8 hours" in the test could actually translate to  over 8 hours  in real houses—meaning the pesticide would  fail  to meet regulations.

Why Answer A is Correct: 
Answer choice A asks exactly this: "Whether anti-termite pesticides dissipate more slowly in furnished rooms than in plywood boxes." This information directly addresses the validity of using the test to predict real-world compliance. If YES (they dissipate more slowly in real rooms), the test result doesn't guarantee compliance. If NO (they dissipate at the same rate or faster), then the test result would be valid.

Why the Others Miss the Mark: 
 
 B focuses on applicator safety equipment—doesn't tell us if the test predicts real conditions 
 C is about evacuation procedures—irrelevant to whether the test environment matches reality 
 D compares different pesticides in the same test—doesn't address test validity 
 E compares toxic vs. non-toxic pesticides—off topic

The Key Insight: 
In "Evaluate" questions, you're looking for information that would either strengthen or weaken the connection between what's being measured and what actually matters. Here, that connection is between plywood box conditions and real house conditions.

Want to Master This Question Type?

While this explanation covers the core logic, there's a systematic framework for tackling all "Evaluate the Argument" questions that can save you precious time on test day. You can check out the  complete step-by-step solution on Neuron by e-GMAT  to understand the underlying pattern and learn how to spot assumption gaps in under 30 seconds. You can also explore detailed solutions for  other GMAT official questions on Neuron  to build systematic accuracy across all Critical Reasoning question types.

Hope this helps you see the logic more clearly!

Regulations will not allow a pesticide that is toxic to humans to be u

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Regulations will not allow a pesticide that is toxic to humans to be u

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