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:
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
37%
(02:12)
correct 63%
(02:15)
wrong
based on 254
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
To allay fears that the new water treatment plant's functionality will be inadequate to turn the city's waste water into sufficiently clean water before it empties into the river, a local city councilwoman held a grand opening where she publicly drank a glass of treated water from the plant. The crowds and members of the media were impressed with her confidence, and the concern blew over. The scientists at the plant later confided that the treated water was indeed cleaner than the river water, but unfortunately, the river had been badly polluted for decades.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
1. The first describes evidence that had been taken in favor of a conclusion; the second gives evidence to question that support. 2. The first describes evidence that had been taken in favor of a conclusion; the second is a conclusion that is in opposition to that evidence. 3. The first gives evidence in support of the argument's conclusion; the second is the conclusion. 4. The first describes a situation that the argument seeks to explain; the second is the explanation of the situation. 5. The first describes a situation that the argument seeks to explain; the second gives evidence to support the explanation of the situation.
Can somebody please help me by explaining how to find the conclusion in this argument?
This Question is Locked Due to Poor Quality
Hi there,
The question you've reached has been archived due to not meeting our community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Looking for better-quality questions? Check out the 'Similar Questions' block below
for a list of similar but high-quality questions.
Want to join other relevant Problem Solving discussions? Visit our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
for the most recent and top-quality discussions.
OA states that Conclusion: The new water treatment plant's functionality will be [adequate] to turn the city's waste water into sufficiently clean water before it empties into the river.
Premise: To allay fears…a local city council woman held a grand opening where she publicly drank a glass of treated water from the plant.
I felt that the whole question did not make any sense because of the last statement which stated that the river water was more polluted than the treated water. What is the conclusion here. If the conclusion is that the water was good after treatment then there is no grounds to oppose that. The last sentence is just additional info with no value.
I felt that the whole question did not make any sense because of the last statement which stated that the river water was more polluted than the treated water. What is the conclusion here. If the conclusion is that the water was good after treatment then there is no grounds to oppose that. The last sentence is just additional info with no value.
Show more
OA says
The argument introduces a plan to turn the city's waste water into sufficiently clean water before it empties into the river. The first bolded phrase describes how a local city councilwoman…publicly drank a glass of treated water from the plant in order to allay fears about the new water treatment plant’s functionality. The second bolded phrase states that unfortunately, the river had been badly polluted for decades, calling the plant’s efficacy in treating the waste water into question. Evaluate the answer choices, looking for one that matches the reasoning in the argument.
To allay fears that the new water treatment plant's functionality will be inadequate to turn the city's waste water into sufficiently clean water before it empties into the river, a local city councilwoman held a grand opening where she publicly drank a glass of treated water from the plant. The crowds and members of the media were impressed with her confidence, and the concern blew over. The scientists at the plant later confided that the treated water was indeed cleaner than the river water, but unfortunately, the river had been badly polluted for decades.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
1. The first describes evidence that had been taken in favor of a conclusion; the second gives evidence to question that support. 2. The first describes evidence that had been taken in favor of a conclusion; the second is a conclusion that is in opposition to that evidence. 3. The first gives evidence in support of the argument's conclusion; the second is the conclusion. 4. The first describes a situation that the argument seeks to explain; the second is the explanation of the situation. 5. The first describes a situation that the argument seeks to explain; the second gives evidence to support the explanation of the situation.
Can somebody please help me by explaining how to find the conclusion in this argument?
Show more
Second part of the OA i.e. option A is definitely not making any sense with respect to the argument. How is the 2nd bold part questioning the 1st bold part?
Comparing to real GMAT questions, the answer should be something along the likes of:
The first statement expresses a fact (or support for the conclusion), the second statement is the conclusion with an added explanation for something that has nothing to do with the first statement.
If you remove everything after "water,", then C is the best choice, though the first part of C isn't exactly true.
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.