Last visit was: 06 Jun 2026, 20:09 It is currently 06 Jun 2026, 20:09
Home
Messages
MBA Fair
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
pinkRibbons
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Last visit: 27 Sep 2010
Posts: 2
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused 27 Sep 2010, 15:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?

A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.

whats the answer ? why ?



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
avatar
harsha1
avatar
Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Last visit: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
5
Location: INDIA
Concentration: Finance
Posts: 2
Kudos: 5
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused 28 Sep 2010, 00:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
wats the answer?
User avatar
utin
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 26 Sep 2011
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
41
Given Kudos: 17
Posts: 63
Kudos: 41
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused 29 Sep 2010, 00:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pinkRibbons
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?

A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.

whats the answer ? why ?
Show more

Is D the OA???
User avatar
Financier
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2010
Last visit: 27 Oct 2012
Posts: 229
Own Kudos:
752
Given Kudos: 194
Schools:Chicago Booth Class of 2013
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 229
Kudos: 752
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused 29 Sep 2010, 12:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is it A?
User avatar
adishail
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Last visit: 06 Feb 2012
Posts: 217
Own Kudos:
162
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Posts: 217
Kudos: 162
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused 29 Sep 2010, 13:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Used POE to narrow down to C & D. I was inclined towards C, however, D seems correct.

Out of scope. Also irrelevant since there is no mention of any pesticide filtering A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.

Out of scope. Nothing mentioned about fund allocation B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.

Out of scope. Extend of harm is not discussed since the company has stated (premises) that they dumping is not harmful C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.

Correct. The dumping of unused pesticides is harmless. Therefore, might as well locate the dumping station at a location that has fewer regulations / cheaper D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.

Out of scope. Nothing is mentioned about anyone suing the company E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.
User avatar
devashish
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Last visit: 16 May 2021
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
602
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 99
Kudos: 602
2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused 03 Oct 2010, 09:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pinkRibbons

A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.
Show more

Can some one please resolve the question.
P1 : Unused Pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to aquatic life.
P2 : Pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the aquatic life.

Why does it have 2 premises each exactly opposite to the other ?
I am unable to make sense of the Premises itself.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7395 posts
AbhishekP220108
665 posts
BhardwajS
24 posts