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.
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 0812:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Sep 1001:00 AM EDT
-02:00 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.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
01 Jun 2026, 01:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
73% (01:57) correct
27%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 351
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
01 Jun 2026, 11:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed.
Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless. The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
The argument says the fears are groundless if the leak-preventing technology works. The missing assumption is that the pipeline cannot realistically pollute the lake in some other way, apart from leaks.
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
This is too broad. The argument is about fears related to the pipeline, not every possible future source of pollution around the lake.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
This is correct. If the pipeline could pollute the lake in some way other than leaking, then leak-prevention technology would not make the fears groundless. The argument depends on ruling out other realistic pollution threats from the pipeline.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
This is not required because the conclusion is already conditional: provided this technology is effective.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
This is irrelevant. The argument is about whether pollution could return and fish populations could decline, not about whether oil leaks could cause other harms.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
This is not required. The argument concerns whether the current fish population may decline again, not whether the species are identical to the earlier ones.
Answer: (B)
Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless. The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
The argument says the fears are groundless if the leak-preventing technology works. The missing assumption is that the pipeline cannot realistically pollute the lake in some other way, apart from leaks.
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
This is too broad. The argument is about fears related to the pipeline, not every possible future source of pollution around the lake.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
This is correct. If the pipeline could pollute the lake in some way other than leaking, then leak-prevention technology would not make the fears groundless. The argument depends on ruling out other realistic pollution threats from the pipeline.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
This is not required because the conclusion is already conditional: provided this technology is effective.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
This is irrelevant. The argument is about whether pollution could return and fish populations could decline, not about whether oil leaks could cause other harms.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
This is not required. The argument concerns whether the current fish population may decline again, not whether the species are identical to the earlier ones.
Answer: (B)
01 Jun 2026, 20:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
Conclusion:
provided this technology is effective, those fears (that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again) are groundless
Support for the conclusion:
a technology for preventing leaks is being installed
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since technology for preventing leaks is being installed, as long as that technology is effective, construction of the pipeline won't result in pollution that causes the fish population to decline again.
One aspect of the reasoning that we might notice is that it jumps from evidence involving leak prevention to a conclusion about pollution in general.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
This is an Assumption question. So, the correct answer will state something that must be true for the evidence to effectively support the conclusion.
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
The conclusion is that fears that construction of a pipeline specifically will revive pollution are groundless. It's not that there is no reason to believe the the lake will ever be polluted in the future.
So, this choice doesn't have to be true for the argument to work.
After all, even if industrial development will result in renewed pollution of the lake, it could still be the case the construction of the pipeline won't result in pollution.
Eliminate.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
This choice is interesting.
After all, the conclusion is based on the fact that leak-prevention technology is being installed.
But what if there is a pollution threat posed by the construction other than the possibility of a leak?
In that case, even if there won't be any leaks, there could still be reason to fear that construction of the pipeline will result in pollution.
So, for the conclusion that the fears are groundless to be supported by the evidence about leak prevention, this choice has to be true.
Keep.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
This choice is tricky. The key to eliminating it is to see that the argument specifically says, "provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless."
We see that the conclusion is basically that, IF the technology is effective, there's no reason to fear the lake will be polluted.
So, the argument does not assume that the technology is effective. Rather, the conclusion is about what is true as long as it is effective.
Eliminate.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
This choice doesn't have to be true for the argument tow work.
After all, even if damage to the fish populations would NOT be the only harm that a leak would cause, it could make sense to conclude that, as long as the pipeline doesn't leak, construction of the pipeline won't result in pollution.
Simply put, the point of the argument is basically that, if there are no leaks, there won't be pollution, not that pollution resulting from a leak wouldn't cause harm.
Eliminate.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
Concluding that construction of the pipeline will not cause a repeat of past pollution problems does not require assuming that the fish now in the lake are the same as the ones that were harmed in the past.
If anything, this choice goes in the wrong direction by indicating that any revival of pollution would have results similar to what occurred in the past because the fish are the same.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
Conclusion:
provided this technology is effective, those fears (that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again) are groundless
Support for the conclusion:
a technology for preventing leaks is being installed
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since technology for preventing leaks is being installed, as long as that technology is effective, construction of the pipeline won't result in pollution that causes the fish population to decline again.
One aspect of the reasoning that we might notice is that it jumps from evidence involving leak prevention to a conclusion about pollution in general.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
This is an Assumption question. So, the correct answer will state something that must be true for the evidence to effectively support the conclusion.
A. Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.
The conclusion is that fears that construction of a pipeline specifically will revive pollution are groundless. It's not that there is no reason to believe the the lake will ever be polluted in the future.
So, this choice doesn't have to be true for the argument to work.
After all, even if industrial development will result in renewed pollution of the lake, it could still be the case the construction of the pipeline won't result in pollution.
Eliminate.
B. Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction.
This choice is interesting.
After all, the conclusion is based on the fact that leak-prevention technology is being installed.
But what if there is a pollution threat posed by the construction other than the possibility of a leak?
In that case, even if there won't be any leaks, there could still be reason to fear that construction of the pipeline will result in pollution.
So, for the conclusion that the fears are groundless to be supported by the evidence about leak prevention, this choice has to be true.
Keep.
C. There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
This choice is tricky. The key to eliminating it is to see that the argument specifically says, "provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless."
We see that the conclusion is basically that, IF the technology is effective, there's no reason to fear the lake will be polluted.
So, the argument does not assume that the technology is effective. Rather, the conclusion is about what is true as long as it is effective.
Eliminate.
D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.
This choice doesn't have to be true for the argument tow work.
After all, even if damage to the fish populations would NOT be the only harm that a leak would cause, it could make sense to conclude that, as long as the pipeline doesn't leak, construction of the pipeline won't result in pollution.
Simply put, the point of the argument is basically that, if there are no leaks, there won't be pollution, not that pollution resulting from a leak wouldn't cause harm.
Eliminate.
E. The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.
Concluding that construction of the pipeline will not cause a repeat of past pollution problems does not require assuming that the fish now in the lake are the same as the ones that were harmed in the past.
If anything, this choice goes in the wrong direction by indicating that any revival of pollution would have results similar to what occurred in the past because the fish are the same.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
