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 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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
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.
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
24 Apr 2025, 00:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63% (01:55) correct
37%
(02:05)
wrong
based on 283
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty percent less carbon dioxide in 2001 than in 2000. The decline in emissions was probably due almost exclusively to the March 2001 development of floating seaweed farms, the first step toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, in addition to being cost-efficient, was also widespread.
Scientists: That cannot be the cause. As you yourself clearly stated, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by twenty percent. Yet seaweed farms can only absorb ten percent of Alberville factories' emissions.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that the scientists present to the mayor's explanation?
(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville.
(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000.
(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville.
(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions.
(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source.
Source: GMAT Hacks - Q of the D - 090313
Scientists: That cannot be the cause. As you yourself clearly stated, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by twenty percent. Yet seaweed farms can only absorb ten percent of Alberville factories' emissions.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that the scientists present to the mayor's explanation?
(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville.
(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000.
(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville.
(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions.
(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source.
Source: GMAT Hacks - Q of the D - 090313
25 Apr 2025, 06:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise: Alberville factories cut CO2 by 20 % from 2000 → 2001.
Mayor’s claim: March-2001 floating seaweed farms caused almost all of that drop.
Scientists’ objection: Impossible—farms can absorb only 10 % of factory CO2, not 20 %.
Issue: Does anything about the farms explain the “missing” 10 %?
(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville.
Who paid for farms doesn’t change how much CO2 they cut => Eliminate ❌
(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000.
More factories yet still a 20 % drop makes the mayor’s claim even harder to believe; strengthens, not weakens => Eliminate ❌
(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville.
“Greater than any other plan” could still be just 10 %; doesn’t fill the gap => Eliminate ❌
(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions.
Cost efficiency is irrelevant here, we're only interested in finding how the seaweed farm can fill the extra 10% gap => Eliminate ❌
(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source.
Dead seaweed becomes a low-emissions fuel, so farms both absorb 10 % and replace dirtier fuel for another ~10 % cut. Now farms can account for the full 20 %, undercutting the scientists’ objection => Correct E ✅
Correct Answer: (E)
Mayor’s claim: March-2001 floating seaweed farms caused almost all of that drop.
Scientists’ objection: Impossible—farms can absorb only 10 % of factory CO2, not 20 %.
Issue: Does anything about the farms explain the “missing” 10 %?
(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville.
Who paid for farms doesn’t change how much CO2 they cut => Eliminate ❌
(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000.
More factories yet still a 20 % drop makes the mayor’s claim even harder to believe; strengthens, not weakens => Eliminate ❌
(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville.
“Greater than any other plan” could still be just 10 %; doesn’t fill the gap => Eliminate ❌
(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions.
Cost efficiency is irrelevant here, we're only interested in finding how the seaweed farm can fill the extra 10% gap => Eliminate ❌
(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source.
Dead seaweed becomes a low-emissions fuel, so farms both absorb 10 % and replace dirtier fuel for another ~10 % cut. Now farms can account for the full 20 %, undercutting the scientists’ objection => Correct E ✅
Correct Answer: (E)
04 May 2025, 15:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Official Explanation
Answer: E
The scientists' argument contains a slight scope shift. The mayor argues that the seaweed farms are responsible "almost exclusively" for a decline in emissions. The scientists reply that seaweed farms "can only absorb" half the amount that the mayor attributes to them. But what if seaweed farms had some other benefit besides simply absorbing emissions? The mayor doesn't claim that the twenty percent reduction is due simply to absorption. To weaken the argument, expose and contradict the assumption that absorption is the only way for seaweed farms to reduce emissions. Choice (E) is correct--if seaweed plants can be used as a low-emissions fuel source, they do in fact have more benefit than their emissions absorption.
