Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
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!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
02 Nov 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
60% (01:58) correct
40%
(02:18)
wrong
based on 640
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It was once thought that pesticide TSX-400 was extremely harmful to the environment but that pesticides Envirochem and Zanar were environmentally harmless. TSX-400 was banned; Envirochem and Zanar were not. However, according to recent studies, Envirochem and Zanar each cause greater environmental harm than does TSX-400. If these studies are accurate, then either Envirochem and Zanar should be banned or TSX-400 should be legalized.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the argumentation?
(A) Two pesticides should not both be legal if one is measurably more harmful to the environment than the other is.
(B) Two pesticides should both be legal only if neither is harmful to the environment.
(C) Two pesticides should both be illegal only if both are harmful to the environment.
(D) One pesticide should be legal and another illegal only if the former is less harmful to the environment than is the latter.
(E) One pesticide should be legal and another illegal if the former is harmless to the environment and the latter is harmful to it.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the argumentation?
(A) Two pesticides should not both be legal if one is measurably more harmful to the environment than the other is.
(B) Two pesticides should both be legal only if neither is harmful to the environment.
(C) Two pesticides should both be illegal only if both are harmful to the environment.
(D) One pesticide should be legal and another illegal only if the former is less harmful to the environment than is the latter.
(E) One pesticide should be legal and another illegal if the former is harmless to the environment and the latter is harmful to it.
06 Nov 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The evidence says new studies show that E and Z, which are legal, are more dangerous than T, which is banned. The conclusion is qualified, in that it starts with the phrase, “If these studies are accurate.” So, if the studies are not accurate, then the argument doesn’t apply. The conclusion is also disjunctive (it uses the word or): “Either E and Z should be banned, or T should be legalized.” So the author isn’t saying we should do both of those things: one or the other would suffice.
The argument asks us to “justify” the argumentation. That means it’s like a Sufficient Assumption question. When answering a Sufficient Assumption question we look for an answer choice that, if true, would make the conclusion logically valid. Here, however, we don't necessarily need something quite that strong, since we are only trying to strengthen the argument, rather than prove it. But if we do happen to find an answer choice that proves the argument, we'll definitely take it! Something like, “Nothing should be banned that is less dangerous than anything that is not banned.” would be nice. Alternatively, “Nothing should be legal that is more dangerous than anything that is banned.” These two statements would operate identically, in that if they were true, and if the studies were valid, then we would have to either unban T, or ban both E and Z.
A) This wouldn’t do it, because the author of the original argument seems okay with just making everything legal. The author is primarily concerned with fairness between the two: they can either both be banned, or both be unbanned, or the worse one can be banned and the safer one can be unbanned. The only bad outcome, according to the logic of the argument, is to have the safer one banned while the dangerous one is unbanned. So this ain’t the answer.
B) Nope, same explanation as A. The author is fine with dangerous stuff being legal, as long as there is equitable treatment of the different substances.
C) This rule could only ever be used to make things legal. The author would also be fine with making everything illegal. The author only cares about fairness between two competing substances.
D) Ding ding ding! This answer is narrower than what we predicted (it’s specifically about pesticides, while our guess used the broader category “anything”), but it operates the same way. D is the principle that would justify the author’s conclusion.
E) No, the author didn’t say, “We must ban all harmful pesticides and make legal all unharmful pesticides.” The author was only concerned with fair treatment between two different pesticides.
D is the only answer that aligns with the author’s conclusion.
03 Nov 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE
Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (D)
This author discusses three different pesticides; for quick reference we can call them "T," "E," and "Z." The old belief was that T was more environmentally damaging than either E or Z. T was banned, and E and Z remained on the market. We now know that T is less harmful than either E or Z, so the author concludes that either T should be legalized, or E and Z should be outlawed.
The author objects to the inconsistency of legal pesticides which are more dangerous than certain illegal pesticides.
Answer choice (A): The author provides no information to assess the disparity between the two referenced legal pesticides, E and Z. All that we can say with certainty is that they are both more harmful than T, so this principle would not strengthen the author's assertion.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is not applicable to the stimulus, because both of the referenced legal pesticides are harmful to the environment.
Answer choice (C): This principle does not strengthen the argument of the author, who is concerned with the inconsistency between harmful legal pesticides and a less harmful illegal pesticide.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, and restates the prephrased principle above in more specific terms. Even more specifically, this choice refers to the fact that E and Z should be legal and T illegal only if E and Z are both less harmful to the environment than T. If this is valid, then the author's assertion is clearly bolstered.
Answer choice (E): Since the stimulus doesn't deal with any "harmless" pesticides, this cannot represent the principle
