GMAT Club Forum
https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/

When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway
https://gmatclub.com/forum/when-permits-for-the-discharge-of-chemicals-into-a-waterway-4043.html
Page 1 of 1

Author:  anandnk [ 07 Jan 2004, 12:16 ]
Post subject:  When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway

When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway are issued, they are issued in terms of the number of pounds each chemical that can be discharged into the waterway per day. These figures, calculated separately for each chemical for which a permit is issued, are based on an estimate of the effect of the dilution of the chemical by the amount of water flowing through the waterway. The waterway is therefore protected against being adversely affected by chemicals discharged under the permits.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) relatively harmless chemicals do not interact with each other in the water to form harmful compounds

(B) there is a swift flow of water in the waterway that ensures rapid dispersion of chemicals discharged

(C) There are no chemicals for which discharge into waterways is entirely prohibited

(D) those who receive the permits do not always discharge the entire quantity of chemicals that the permits allow

(E) the danger of chemical pollution of waterways is to be evaluated in terms of human health only and not in terms of the health of both human beings and wildlife

Author:  Titleist [ 07 Jan 2004, 14:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway

anandnk wrote:
19. When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway are issued, they are issued in terms of the number of pounds each chemical that can be discharged into the waterway per day. These figures, calculated separately for each chemical for which a permit is issued, are based on an estimate of the effect of the dilution of the chemical by the amount of water flowing through the waterway. The waterway is therefore protected against being adversely affected by chemicals discharged under the permits.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) relatively harmless chemicals do not interact with each other in the water to form harmful compounds

(B) there is a swift flow of water in the waterway that ensures rapid dispersion of chemicals discharged

(C) those who receive the permits do not always discharge the entire quantity of chemicals that the permits allow

(D) the danger of chemical pollution of waterways is to be evaluated in terms of human health only and not in terms of the health of both human beings and wildlife


I get A

B was tempting but it was already stated in the passage so it is not an assumption.

Author:  anandnk [ 08 Jan 2004, 06:15 ]
Post subject:  Re: When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway

Refute B please

As per the argument the pollution is kept under control by limiting the discharge to such an amount that it is diluted to an harmless extent. The question does not ask for weakening or strengthening. If the chemical is not diluted then it is not serving the purpose. This has to be the assumption to connect the conclusion and premise.
A is out of scope though it would sound logical for a question "which one of the following if true would weaken authors argument"

B tells that whatever the authorities expect is indeed happening.

Author:  asandeep [ 08 Jan 2004, 06:54 ]
Post subject:  Re: When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway

anandnk wrote:
Refute B please

As per the argument the pollution is kept under control by limiting the discharge to such an amount that it is diluted to an harmless extent. The question does not ask for weakening or strengthening. If the chemical is not diluted then it is not serving the purpose. This has to be the assumption to connect the conclusion and premise.
A is out of scope though it would sound logical for a question "which one of the following if true would weaken authors argument"

B tells that whatever the authorities expect is indeed happening.


The best way to find out an assumption is to negate it.

Lets negate B.
We get -
The flow of water is not enough to "disperse" the chemicals.

But the important point to note is that the argument is based on "dilution" not "dispersion". A chemical can be diluted in stagnant water. Can't it ?
So, even if you negate Option B the argument still stands.

Now, lets negate A.
We get -
The chemicals interact with each other and create other harmful chemicals.

Even if there is flow of water, or even if the chemicals are diluted, if the chemicals can potentially interact to form harmful compounds then the argument falls apart. Doesn't it ?

Author:  analytica233 [ 17 Mar 2020, 07:14 ]
Post subject:  When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway

anandnk wrote:
When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway are issued, they are issued in terms of the number of pounds each chemical that can be discharged into the waterway per day. These figures, calculated separately for each chemical for which a permit is issued, are based on an estimate of the effect of the dilution of the chemical by the amount of water flowing through the waterway. The waterway is therefore protected against being adversely affected by chemicals discharged under the permits.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) relatively harmless chemicals do not interact with each other in the water to form harmful compounds

(B) there is a swift flow of water in the waterway that ensures rapid dispersion of chemicals discharged

(C) There are no chemicals for which discharge into waterways is entirely prohibited

(D) those who receive the permits do not always discharge the entire quantity of chemicals that the permits allow

(E) the danger of chemical pollution of waterways is to be evaluated in terms of human health only and not in terms of the health of both human beings and wildlife


CONCLUSION: "The waterway is therefore protected against being adversely affected by CHEMICALS under the permits."

(A) Relatively harmless chemicals do not interact with each other in the water to form harmful compounds
What if the discharged chemicals allowed by the permits are SEPARATELY safe for the waterway but can produce COMBINATIONS/COMPOUNDS harmful to it?
Hence, (A) excludes this possibility. Negation of (A) will make the Conclusion break down.
Keep (A)

(B) There is a SWIFT FLOW OF WATER in the waterway that ensures rapid dispersion of chemicals discharged
Notice that it is the AMOUNT of water flowing through the waterway, not the SPEED, that produces the dilution effect of the chemicals. Eliminate (B).

(C) There are no chemicals for which discharge into waterways is entirely prohibited
(C) does not address the logical gap between the Conclusion and the Premises. Try negating (C): There are SOME chemicals for which discharge into waterways is entirely prohibited. This will not affect the Conclusion. Eliminate (C).

(D) Those who receive the permits do NOT ALWAYS discharge the ENTIRE quantity of chemicals that the permits allow
(D) only strengthens the Conclusion: the quantity of discharged chemicals is even LOWER than is allowed by the permits. Negation of (D) "Those who receive the permits ALWAYS discharge the ENTIRE quantity the permits ALLOW" will not make the Conclusion fail because the quantity of each discharged chemical allowed by the permits is ALREADY CALCULATED so that each chemical will NOT harm the waterway. Eliminate (D)

(E) The danger of chemical pollution of waterways is to be evaluated in terms of human health only and not in terms of the health of both human beings and wildlife
The conclusion is concerned with whether the permits ensure that chemicals do NOT affect adversely the waterway IN GENERAL. Whether the danger is in terms of human health only or to both human beings and wildlife is relevant. Eliminate (E).

--> (A) is correct.

Author:  VerbalBot [ 21 Oct 2022, 11:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: When permits for the discharge of chemicals into a waterway

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/