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 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
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.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
06 Jun 2022, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
83% (01:45) correct
17%
(01:51)
wrong
based on 83
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A worldwide ban on the production of certain ozone-destroying chemicals would provide only an illusion of protection. Quantities of such chemicals, already produced, exist as coolants in millions of refrigerators. When they reach the ozone layer in the atmosphere, their action cannot be halted. So there is no way to prevent these chemicals from damaging the ozone layer further.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone.
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone.
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused
06 Jun 2022, 08:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO E
A worldwide ban on the production of certain ozone-destroying chemicals would provide only an illusion of protection. Quantities of such chemicals, already produced, exist as coolants in millions of refrigerators. When they reach the ozone layer in the atmosphere, their action cannot be halted. So there is no way to prevent these chemicals from damaging the ozone layer further.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators. --> it says banning is the only option but does not weaken the argument.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone. --> Supports the argument
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused--> if the coolants are reused we do not produce any more coolants thus the banning actually works and its not just an illusion--> This Weakness the argument
A worldwide ban on the production of certain ozone-destroying chemicals would provide only an illusion of protection. Quantities of such chemicals, already produced, exist as coolants in millions of refrigerators. When they reach the ozone layer in the atmosphere, their action cannot be halted. So there is no way to prevent these chemicals from damaging the ozone layer further.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) It is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone-destroying chemicals that exist as coolants in refrigerators. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(B) In modern societies, refrigeration of food is necessary to prevent unhealthy and potentially life-threatening conditions. --> Neither weakens nor strengthens.
(C) Replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been developed and would be more expensive than the chemicals now used as coolants in refrigerators. --> it says banning is the only option but does not weaken the argument.
(D) Even if people should give up the use of refrigeration, the coolants already in existing refrigerators are a threat to atmospheric ozone. --> Supports the argument
(E) The coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life of the refrigerators and reused--> if the coolants are reused we do not produce any more coolants thus the banning actually works and its not just an illusion--> This Weakness the argument
04 Apr 2025, 12:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Can you please elaborate bit more..I have selected choice D
