ash124 wrote:
KyleWiddison wrote:
To answer this question, you need to find an answer choice that correctly describes why ailments will not decrease in spite of emmission reductions. It's okay to bring in new information, but that information needs to stay true to the stated premises in the argument.
A-We're concerned about the number of ailments, not the treatment "post-ailment".
B-How Woodco acheives its reduction in emmissions is irrelevant because that reduction is already a given premise.
C-Irrelevant information. This does not explain why ailments would increase despite decreased emmissions.
D-Interesting point, but irrelevant because the first premise states that the ailments are connected to airborne emmissions. Granted there could be other ailments, but the ones we care about result from airborne pollutants.
E-This is right on! If new plants go into production in Groverston, the emmissions from the 3 new plants will overwhelm the emmissions acheived in the Woodco plant.
KW
I have one question
It is regarding option E:It is not necessary that three new plants will emit the same harmful pollution
if we consider this point then option D is better.
Please help
thanks in advance
From the passage, we know that Woodco plans to reduce its respiratory-ailment-inducing pollution in
two years, but for some reason the rate of respiratory ailments will not decline for
four years. The correct answer will explain why the rate of respiratory ailments won't decline sooner. With that in mind, take another look at (D):
Quote:
(D) not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants
(D) does not explain why the rate of ailments will not decrease as Woodco decreases pollution. The respiratory ailments caused by factors other than pollution will occur regardless of Woodco's efforts, and we have no information that implies that the rate these other ailments will change in the next several years. So, the overall number of ailments would look something like this:
Before Woodco reduces pollution:
- Some number of ailments NOT caused by pollution +
- Some number of ailments caused by pollution
After Woodco reduces pollution in two years:
- The SAME number of ailments NOT caused by pollution +
- A REDUCED number of ailments caused by pollution
As you can see, even given the information in (D) we would expect the overall rate of respiratory ailments to decrease in two years. Because (D) does not explain why this reduction in respiratory ailments will not occur, we can eliminate (D).
(E), on the other hand, provides a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the rate of ailments will not go down as Woodco reduces pollution -- three more plywood plants are about to go into production. It is true that we do not know whether these plants produce the same pollutants, but the strong possibility that they do provides the "most logical" completion to the passage.
I hope that helps!