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.
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
87% (01:30) correct
13%
(01:46)
wrong
based on 6224
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells. Because wood smoke presents such a high health risk, legislation is needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood-burning stoves.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument above?
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in wood smoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.
(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.
(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.
(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.
OG11
Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument above?
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in wood smoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.
(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.
(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.
(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.
OG11
Argument Construction
Situation
Wood smoke is hazardous, so restrictive legislation is needed.
Reasoning
Which point supports the need for legislation? The argument for legislation is based on the position that wood smoke is hazardous to people’s health. Any evidence of physical harm resulting from wood smoke supports the argument that legislation is needed. Undoubtedly, poor air quality caused by a high concentration of wood smoke presents just such a health risk.
(A) If wood smoke were as dangerous as car exhaust, this might support the idea of regulating it just as exhaust emissions are regulated; but this statement tells us it is less dangerous.
(B) This point suggests less of a need for legislation.
(C) This information provides no support for the idea that the use of wood-burning stoves should be regulated.
(D) The lack of benefit from banning open-air fires is a point against the legislation.
(E) Correct. This supports the argument in favor of legislation.
The correct answer is E.
Situation
Wood smoke is hazardous, so restrictive legislation is needed.
Reasoning
Which point supports the need for legislation? The argument for legislation is based on the position that wood smoke is hazardous to people’s health. Any evidence of physical harm resulting from wood smoke supports the argument that legislation is needed. Undoubtedly, poor air quality caused by a high concentration of wood smoke presents just such a health risk.
(A) If wood smoke were as dangerous as car exhaust, this might support the idea of regulating it just as exhaust emissions are regulated; but this statement tells us it is less dangerous.
(B) This point suggests less of a need for legislation.
(C) This information provides no support for the idea that the use of wood-burning stoves should be regulated.
(D) The lack of benefit from banning open-air fires is a point against the legislation.
(E) Correct. This supports the argument in favor of legislation.
The correct answer is E.
28 Jun 2012, 14:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
All the correct answer has to do is say the following: woodsmoke is dangerous. If an answer choice doesn't say this, we eliminate it.
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in woodsmoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.
This suggests that woodsmoke is not dangerous.
(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.
Shows that the legislation would be irrelevant. Does not talk about the dangers of woodsmoke.
(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.
This answer choice does not back up the idea that woodsmoke is harmful.
(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
Shows that the legislation would not have any effect.
(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.
While not the strongest answer, 'poor air quality' suggests that the woodsmoke is making the air harmful to breathe. Do not worry about the fact that it is in a valley. Any place in which woodsmoke causes the air quality to become poor, suggests that woodsmoke is harmful everywhere.
Hope that helps
.
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in woodsmoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.
This suggests that woodsmoke is not dangerous.
(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.
Shows that the legislation would be irrelevant. Does not talk about the dangers of woodsmoke.
(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.
This answer choice does not back up the idea that woodsmoke is harmful.
(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
Shows that the legislation would not have any effect.
(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.
While not the strongest answer, 'poor air quality' suggests that the woodsmoke is making the air harmful to breathe. Do not worry about the fact that it is in a valley. Any place in which woodsmoke causes the air quality to become poor, suggests that woodsmoke is harmful everywhere.
Hope that helps
. 
16 May 2021, 05:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
The correct answer: E
Argument Analysis:
1. Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells
2. It presents a high health risk
3. Because it presents a high health risk, laws are needed to regulate the use of
a) open-air fires
b) wood burning stoves
Question:
Find a Strengthener
Prethinking:
What new information will help us believe more in the notion that laws are needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood burning stoves?
Given wood smoke is a high health risk
1. Any statement that supports the idea that wood smoke is extremely dangerous - a high health risk
Example: Wood smoke has a very high amount of carcinogens that have been shown to cause lung cancer
2. Any statement that indicates that open air fires/wood burning stoves are significant generators of wood smoke and therefore regulation here can help.
Example: As per a study, open air fires and wood burning stoves have been found to be the cause of a majority of the wood smoke
Option Choice Analysis:
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in wood smoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.
This argument is only concerned with the danger posed by wood smoke. How it compares with another source of dangerous toxins is irrelevant.
(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.
If anything, it weakens the argument by suggesting that things that generate wood smoke are not used as much. Then why regulation? So, it can be considered a weakener at some level.
(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.
This argument is only concerned with the danger posed by wood smoke. How it compares with another type of smoke is irrelevant.
(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
If so, why have this proposal to regulate usage of open air fires? Yet again, it goes in the other direction. it weakens belief that the regulation will help rather than strengthen it.
(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.
Correct. This is in line with strengthener 1 from our prethinking. It suggests that where wood is used for heating, the wood smoke that is generated is concentrated such that it impacts air quality negatively. In other words, it indicates how wood smoke is dangerous/bad for health. This will strengthen the conclusion that legislation to regulate will help.
E is the correct choice.
Hope this helps!
Regards
Argument Analysis:
1. Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells
2. It presents a high health risk
3. Because it presents a high health risk, laws are needed to regulate the use of
a) open-air fires
b) wood burning stoves
Question:
Find a Strengthener
Prethinking:
What new information will help us believe more in the notion that laws are needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood burning stoves?
Given wood smoke is a high health risk
1. Any statement that supports the idea that wood smoke is extremely dangerous - a high health risk
Example: Wood smoke has a very high amount of carcinogens that have been shown to cause lung cancer
2. Any statement that indicates that open air fires/wood burning stoves are significant generators of wood smoke and therefore regulation here can help.
Example: As per a study, open air fires and wood burning stoves have been found to be the cause of a majority of the wood smoke
Option Choice Analysis:
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in wood smoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.
This argument is only concerned with the danger posed by wood smoke. How it compares with another source of dangerous toxins is irrelevant.
(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.
If anything, it weakens the argument by suggesting that things that generate wood smoke are not used as much. Then why regulation? So, it can be considered a weakener at some level.
(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from wood-burning stoves.
This argument is only concerned with the danger posed by wood smoke. How it compares with another type of smoke is irrelevant.
(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
If so, why have this proposal to regulate usage of open air fires? Yet again, it goes in the other direction. it weakens belief that the regulation will help rather than strengthen it.
(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.
Correct. This is in line with strengthener 1 from our prethinking. It suggests that where wood is used for heating, the wood smoke that is generated is concentrated such that it impacts air quality negatively. In other words, it indicates how wood smoke is dangerous/bad for health. This will strengthen the conclusion that legislation to regulate will help.
E is the correct choice.
Hope this helps!
Regards
