If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality

Question

If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality and visibility over the city will begin to suffer, rainwater may be polluted, and the city will contribute to the global problem of greenhouse emissions. Taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit; this charge will therefore protect the city's air.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build.

B. The tax will not signiﬁcantly affect the commercial health of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit.

C. The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly.

D. The quality of the air is an important issue for most of the city's residents.

E. Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission.

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

bronaugust · Answer

To solve this question, we shall follow    IMS's 4-step approach.

STEP #1  -> FIGURE OUT THE QUESTION TYPE BY READING THE QUESTION STEM

The question stem states, 'Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?' Clearly, we are dealing with an assumption question. Now that we have figured out what the question type is, we may proceed to the second step.

STEP #2  -> DECONSTRUCT THE ARGUMENT

In an assumption question, it is a must to deconstruct the argument by figuring out the conclusion and the premise.

CONCLUSION:   Taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will protect the city's air.

PREMISE:   This taxing will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit.

Now that the argument is deconstructed, you may proceed to the third step.

STEP #3  -> FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER/KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER SHOULD BE DOING

In an assumption question, the right answer simply bridges the gap between the conclusion and the premise. For the author to arrive at the conclusion based on the stated premise, he must be assuming that the norms will be followed by the commercial establishments. If taxing does not induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit, the plan will fail. However, the author says that such taxing will actually induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit. Thus, he is assuming that the norms set will be adhered to. Now that you know what the right answer should be doing, you may proceed to the final step.

STEP #4  - ELIMINATE INCORRECT ANSWER OPTIONS

All answer options that go beyond the scope of the para or those that do not actually impact the argument can be eliminated.

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of   products they build .  -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  The argument does not deal with products the businesses build, so whether or not businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build is beyond the scope of the argument. -    ELIMINATE

B. The tax will not signiﬁcantly affect the   commercial health   of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit. -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  The argument does not deal with commercial health of most businesses.  -   ELIMINATE

C. The tax   will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly  . -   BRIDGES THE GAP   -  If the tax induces businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly, the air pollution will not witness a decrease, meaning city's air will not be protected. The argument would fall flat if this were not an assumption! -    KEEP

D. The quality of the air is an   important issue for most of the city's residents.   -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  Whether or not the quality of air is an important issue for most of the city's residents will not impact the argument in any way and hence this option is out of scope.  -   ELIMINATE

E.   Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses   through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission. -    OUT OF SCOPE   -  Whether or not polluted air can be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses will not impact the argument in any way.  -   ELIMINATE

Hence, C has to be the right answer.

captain0612 · Answer

IMO Choice C

Conclusion  - Taxing every polluting commercial establishment per volume of polluted air or per particulate volume of greenhouse emissions will protect city's air.

Evidence  - Taxing will induce businesses to reduce the amount of pollution they emit

Question type -  Assumption.

Thought process  - Unstated information which the author believes to be true when arriving at the conclusion.

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build.  Need not be the case.  Incorrect

B. The tax will not signiﬁcantly affect the commercial health of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit. Irrelevant.  We are not told the link between the commercial health of a business and the amount of pollution. Moreover, this chioce suggests that the taxing would not affect the commercial business. Sounds more like a weakner to me.  Incorrect

C. The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly.   Correct  Taxing a business ideally impacts their margins, and imposes the businesses to adapt to these new rules which sometimes are costly. So, according to this choice there isn't any other way of disposing off the emmisions while maintaining low pollutant emmisions legally.

D. The quality of the air is an important issue for most of the city's residents.  Similar to B, the connection between the city's residents and the business motives/ goals is unknown. Hence, we cannot say how it might imapct the businesses sticking to laws stringently.  Incorrect

E. Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gasses through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission.  This choice explains one of ways by which the emissions can be controlled, but fails to establish whether all the businesses are going to adapt such a system, hence doesn't bridge the gap between evidence and the conclusion. This choice is more like an explanation.  Incorrect

Legenddary1234 · Answer

IMO C

he argument suggests that taxing polluting commercial establishments based on the volume of air pollution or greenhouse emissions will encourage these businesses to reduce their emissions, thereby helping protect the city's air quality. To determine the underlying assumption that supports this conclusion, let's examine each answer choice:

A. Businesses will reduce the amount of pollution they emit by reducing the number of products they build.

This choice specifies a method by which businesses might reduce pollution (reducing production), but the argument does not depend on this specific method being used. Businesses could also adopt cleaner technologies or improve efficiencies to reduce emissions. Thus, this is not a necessary assumption.
B. The tax will not significantly affect the commercial health of most businesses, even if their factories do not reduce the amount of pollution they emit.

This choice addresses the potential economic impact of the tax on businesses. While the economic impact is a consideration, the argument assumes that the tax itself will be effective in reducing pollution irrespective of its economic impact. The assumption that the tax will not cripple businesses economically is not directly required for the argument that the tax will lead to reduced emissions.
C. The tax will not induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly.

This choice directly addresses the possibility of businesses finding alternative, perhaps unethical or illegal, ways to manage or misreport their emissions rather than actually reducing them. If businesses simply shift their pollution rather than reducing it, the tax would not achieve its intended effect of reducing emissions. Thus, the argument assumes that businesses will comply with the spirit of the law and not engage in such covert activities.
D. The quality of the air is an important issue for most of the city's residents.

While public concern might be relevant to the motivation for implementing a tax, it is not essential to the argument's logic that taxing emissions will lead to reduced emissions. The argument does not depend on public opinion but on the behavior of businesses in response to the tax.
E. Polluted air could be purified and cleaned of greenhouse gases through technology installed at company factories at the point of emission.

This choice suggests a method for reducing pollution, similar to A. However, the argument assumes that businesses will find a way to reduce emissions, which could include technology, but it does not depend specifically on the adoption of purification technology.
From these analyses, Option C is the assumption made in the conclusion. The effectiveness of the tax in reducing emissions assumes that businesses will not find covert ways to evade the environmental intent of the tax. If businesses were to dispose of their pollution covertly, the tax would not lead to the intended reduction in emissions, thus failing to protect the city’s air as predicted.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Reading the question: the prompt concerns a plan, and we need to find an assumption in the plan. Plans tend to have lots of assumptions, but they can be difficult to think of. We tax polluters, so they pollute less--no assumption jumps out. Without a specific prediction, therefore, we can apply a basic filter to each answer choice: does it have any relevance to whether the plan will work?

Applying the filter: We test the choices for relevance to the plan. In choice (A), reducing pollution is part of our conclusion, but the "number of products" need not be part of it. Choice (B) is not critical to the argument; it doesn't say or claim or require that businesses will like the tax or even survive it. Choice (C) looks relevant. Choice (D) is irrelevant to whether the tax will work. And choice (E) is not required for the plan to work, as we can see by a negation test: say there isn't a way to purify gasses at the point of emission. They could still pollute less, by producing less, or by capturing the air and shipping it into space in sealed containers, or whatever. So choice (E) is out.

Logical proof: We're left with (C), so we apply the negation test. Negating it, we get, "The tax will induce businesses to dispose of their greenhouse gas pollution covertly." That statement, if true, deals a severe blow to the argument. The plan won't achieve its aim if polluters continue to pollute covertly. Choice (C) is indeed critical.

The correct answer is (C).

If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality

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

If the city goes on polluting the air at present rates, air quality

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