Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high

Question

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high rates of respiratory ailments in Loganville to airborne pollutants released in the manufacture of plywood. In response, the city government imposed strict regulations on emissions from our plant, which we have followed at great cost to our production capacity. But after an initial dip, the rate of respiratory ailments rose to new levels, so the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

MartyMurray · Answer

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high rates of respiratory ailments in Loganville to airborne pollutants released in the manufacture of plywood. In response, the city government imposed strict regulations on emissions from our plant, which we have followed at great cost to our production capacity. But after an initial dip, the rate of respiratory ailments rose to new levels, so the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

If anything, this strengthens the case for the conclusion by suggesting that respiratory ailments are caused by something other than airborne pollutants.

Eliminate.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

This makes no difference. Installing equipment to increase capacity without increasing emissions would not result in an increase in emissions or in the rate of ailments.

Eliminate.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

This makes no difference since this information about other towns doesn't indicate anything about whether emissions have caused ailments in Loganville.

Eliminate.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

This choice is interesting.

The reasoning of the argument is basically that, since the rate of respiratory ailments increased after Woodco began following the regulations, and presumably reduced the quantity of pollutants released by the plant, pollution from the plant was never the cause of the ailments.

Now, this choice says that a new plywood plant opened after the regulations were implemented. So, so it could be that emissions from that plywood plant have caused the increase in ailments.

In that case, even though Woodco's plant itself may no longer be causing ailments, it could still be the case that, in general, pollution from plywood manufacturing does.

That fact weakens the case for the conclusion that "the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant" because it indicates that the following could have happened:

Woodo plywood manufacturing pollution was making people sick. Then, Woodco started following the regulations, and the rate of ailments dipped. Then, the new plywood plant started up, and started causing ailments again.

So, this choice weakens the argument by indicating that plywood manufacturing pollution in general is likely the cause of the ailments, meaning that, before following the regulations, Woodco was causing the ailments even though Woodco is not causing them now.

Keep.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

This doesn't connect emissions to ailments. So, it doesn't affect the case for the conclusion.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   D

iamjayysingh · Answer

WHT??? We have to weaken the argument not strengthen it, argument was that the high rates was not becuz of the pollution from his factory.

SecretFlight · Answer

The manufactures argument is that they're not responsible as mentioned in the conclusion by using the word "our". On that basis shouldn't d also be eliminated??.

None of the options in the question are legit. I agree with the reasoning with the rest off the options but option a.so doesn't work.

In fact we might even be able to make option e work since more clinics means people can be diagnosed and hence the reported numbers will increase showing a rise in the number of cases

guddo · Answer

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high rates of respiratory ailments in Loganville to airborne pollutants released in the manufacture of plywood. In response, the city government imposed strict regulations on emissions from our plant, which we have followed at great cost to our production capacity. But after an initial dip, the rate of respiratory ailments rose to new levels, so the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant.
 
 Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

The manufacturer argues that because respiratory ailments rose again after Woodco reduced emissions, Woodco’s pollution was never the cause.  The weak point  is that another source of similar pollution may have appeared after Woodco’s emissions were reduced. That would explain the initial dip and later rise without clearing Woodco of earlier responsibility.

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

This gives another possible cause of respiratory ailments, so it does not weaken Woodco’s argument.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

This does not weaken the argument. It says Woodco increased production without increasing emissions.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

This is irrelevant. The issue is respiratory ailments in Loganville and pollution from the Loganville plant.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

This is correct. If another plywood plant opened nearby after Woodco’s emissions were restricted, then the later rise in respiratory ailments could have been caused by pollution from that new plant. That means the initial dip may still have been caused by reducing Woodco’s emissions, so Woodco’s conclusion is not justified.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

This might affect detection or treatment, but it does not directly show that Woodco’s pollution was not responsible before or that another pollution source caused the later rise.

Answer: (D)

titashmandal123 · Answer

Is this a genuine OG question?. We have to weaken the argument and not strengthen it. Why is B wrong ???

WildSnow · Answer

Conclusion is:  high rate was  NEVER  a result of pollution from  OUR  plant.

Note the word NEVER & OUR. Option (D) lays this out beautifully, suggesting that Woodco was responsible SOMETIME.

Read the lines below from Marty's explanation: Woodo plywood manufacturing pollution was making people sick. Then, Woodco started following the regulations, and the rate of ailments dipped. Then, the new plywood plant started up, and started causing ailments again.

WildSnow · Answer

Why do you think (B) is correct? The only issue that matters is whether Woodco is responsible for the pollution, and (B) does not seem to provide any evidence or indication one way or the other on that end.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  titashmandal123  yes its a genuine OG ques from OG 26 27. The explanation has been given by experts and do check them for option choice analysis.

FrozenDragon · Answer

Stimulus : Ten years ago, a study showed a connection between high respiratory cases and air pollution released by plywood manufacturers. ---- > Because of that, the government imposed strict new rules to curtail the air pollution. -----> However, cases increased after an initial small dip. ---> Because of this, the Woodco Plywood Manufacturer claims that they were never responsible for the pollution.

Question :  We need to weaken the Woodco Plywood Manufacturer's claim that they were never responsible for the pollution.

Now let's deep dive into the options :

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published.

This is the opposite of what we want. This actually strengthens the manufacturer's argument by providing an alternative cause for the ailments.

B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions.

titashmandal123 
 
  This option states that Woodco's emissions did  not  increase. If their pollution didn't go up, this cannot explain the new spike in respiratory cases. Therefore, it does nothing to prove Woodco was responsible for the original ailments.

C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years.

What happens at plants in other towns is completely irrelevant. We only care about what is causing the respiratory ailments in Loganville.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.

SecretFlight

I think there is some confusion in understanding the conclusion, The manufacturer claims that because cases increased again after the regulations, they must never have been responsible in the first place. However, this option provides an alternate explanation for the new increase: a different plant opened 9 years ago. This shows Woodco  was  likely responsible for the original cases (which explains why cases dipped when Woodco cut emissions), but the new competitor caused the subsequent rise.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.

Ok, I see what this option is trying to do, but our argument is about cases and pollution. It could be a weakening option if it said there are more respiratory  detecting  centers instead of treating centers (which could explain a false rise in reported cases). As it stands, it is irrelevant.

Adit_ · Answer

Feels highly dubious.

Lets say I manufacture plywood.
I use some technique X (no mention of how plywood is generated, maybe one group had better technique than the other)
I produce a certain amount of Y pollutants. Those Y pollutants went down after a while and I claim that it was not "my" fault.

The fact that conclusion mentioned "our" plant gives sufficient reason to believe that plywood manufacturer each possibly could have their own technique and diff amount of pollutants released.
Option D IMO does not harm the conclusion in any way.
Both the competitors may be releasing diff amounts of the pollutants entirely.
So the conclusion that the high rate was NEVER a result of pollution still stands.

On the other hand I am not sure why nobody mentioned E.
If D is indeed true with all the little assumptions made, option E can be right too.

There is reason to believe that if there are more facilities for treating a given ailment, naturally more cases are being recorded in hospitals for the given ailment. With that more people come to Loganville for getting their treatment done. Since they arrive at that location to get their treatment done, naturally there is also reason to believe that the number of respiratory ailments have gone up, or the rate has gone up.
So the whole conclusion that because they had a dip, they are safe is shattered here. Their factories could still be of an issue.

IMO option E looks great.

Looking for expert opinions and a healthy discussion.
 Bunuel  what is your view on this?

PS: I do see a point for option D as well, but it does involve assumptions. I personally feel E to be stronger than D.

egmat · Answer

Hi Adit_,

Your instinct to interrogate D is exactly the right habit, and you're tracking the argument carefully. The two things tripping you up are both small reading moves, so let me pin them down.

On D - you're adding an assumption the choice doesn't need.

Look back at the very first line of the stimulus: the original study linked the ailments to "airborne pollutants released in  the manufacture of plywood " - not to Woodco's specific technique. So the relevant category is  plywood-manufacturing pollution , full stop. D doesn't ask you to assume the competitor uses the same technique or releases the identical mix; it just needs another  plywood plant  emitting after Woodco cut back. That's enough to explain the pattern:

- Woodco pollutes -> ailments are high
- Woodco follows regulations -> ailments  dip 
- Competing plant opens -> ailments  rise again

That story leaves Woodco as a genuine earlier cause, which is precisely what "the high rate was  never  a result of pollution from our plant" denies. So D weakens the conclusion without any smuggled-in assumption.

On E - the word doing the work is "treating," not "detecting."

Your chain (more facilities -> more cases recorded -> higher rate) only holds if the new facilities  diagnose  or  report  more ailments. But E says facilities for  treating  them. People don't get diagnosed  because  a treatment center exists; treatment capacity doesn't change how many people actually have the ailment or how it's counted. The moment you swap "treating" for "detecting," E becomes tempting - and that swap is something you brought to it, not something E says.

So the deciding rule here: weaken this argument by finding a  new source of the same kind of pollution that appeared after the dip . D does that on its own terms; E only does it if you rewrite one of its words.

Answer: D

egmat · Answer

Hi titashmandal123,

Yes, this is a legitimate official-style question, and you're right that the task is to  weaken  the conclusion. Let's lock onto the conclusion first, because that's the key to seeing why B does nothing.

The manufacturer concludes:  "the high rate was never a result of pollution from our plant."  To weaken this, an answer must give a reason to believe pollution  could  still be the culprit - exactly what D does by introducing a second plywood plant that could explain the renewed rise.

Why B fails

B says the plant  "installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions."

Notice what B is actually about: production volume and the fact that emissions stayed flat. But the argument already tells us Woodco followed the emission regulations. So B just confirms what we knew - emissions did not go up.

To weaken, you'd need something that links  pollution to the ailments . B says nothing about whether the emissions cause respiratory problems. It's a classic  true-but-irrelevant  choice: a real fact that leaves the conclusion's logic completely untouched.

Turn one knob to feel it

Watch how the relevance changes:

- B as written: "increased production,  no rise  in emissions" - tells us nothing about cause - no effect on the argument.
- Imagine instead: "increased production, and emissions  secretly rose  the whole time" -  now  it would suggest Woodco's pollution never really dropped, which would attack the conclusion.

The original B is the harmless version - it never connects emissions to the ailments, so it can't weaken anything.

Keep your eye on the conclusion's exact claim, and ask of every choice:  does this make Woodco's pollution more likely to be the cause?  Only D passes that test.

Answer: D

muskang2000 · Answer

Just an attempt:

The conclusion is: High rate of airborne pollutants was never a result of pollution from Woodco's plant. Why? Despite the dip following the strict regulations, the rate of the ailments rose again. So technically, from the plant's perspective, they were never at fault. If they were at fault, then the ailments would have stayed low instead of rising to new levels.

Now, hopefully we all agree A, B and C are out. The main competition is between D and E.

D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant.
The Situation: 10 years ago the study came out, regulations were imposed and adhered to, causing a dip in ailments. All in one year, say. Then, 9 years ago, a competitor emerges in the same town/area. We are also seeing a rise after an initial dip. So, it is likely that the new plant is causing the rise. Now here's why this option is right:
it gives a reason to believe that Woodco (just another plywood manufacturer) also caused the pollution in question in absence of the regulations imposed on them. This attacks the conclusion that High rate of airborne pollutants was never a result of pollution from Woodco's plant. 
Reasoning: Post the regulations, there was a dip. After the competitor came in, there was a rise. So, regulations curbed the pollution i.e., pollution existed in the first place and once the regulations were imposed, pollution went down leading to dip in ailments too. 'So the conclusion that High rate of airborne pollutants was never a result of pollution from Woodco's plant', breaks.

E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago.
I marked this too because I thought that if more facilities exist now than 11 years ago, maybe people had the ailments even during Woodco's time but did not get themselves treated cause of the lack of facilities. This broke the conclusion that 'High rate of airborne pollutants (or high ailments) was never a result of pollution from Woodco's plant'.
But here's the issue:

The option compares number of facilities today vs. 11 years ago. Directly comparing these two does not get us closer to breaking the conclusion that 'High rate of airborne pollutants was never a result of pollution from Woodco's plant'. It could be the case that 11 years ago, the number of facilities was 20; 10 years ago it was 30; 9 years ago, it was 50, and today its at 100. But does this matter? Maybe 50 (9 years ago) were more than enough to treat patients with respiratory illness. Maybe not. It raises more questions and assumptions than clearly weakening.
Additionally, the facilities are meant for treatment of respiratory ailments. Maybe the facilities are for treating respiratory ailments caused due to smoking or something else. We do not know for sure.

Ans is D

parthoupadhyay17 · Answer

MartyMurray

Hi, Marty, shouldn't we be focussed on finding an answer option that indicates that Woodco plywood manufacture was the reason for the increase in rate of respiratory ailments post the initial dip. while answering the question, I had only (D) & (E) left post Process of elimination and I got confused and marked (E) and got it wrong.

MartyMurray · Answer

Hi  parthoupadhyay17 , if we focused on that, rather than looking for an answer choice that simply works, we'd be looking for one that fits a preconceived notion of how the correct answer must work.

The correct answer to a Weaken question doesn't have to work in any particular way. I just has to show that there's reason to believe that the conclusion may not be correct. So, our focus should be on finding any answer choice that has that effect.

In this case, (D) works perfectly even though it doesn't show that Woodco was responsible for the increase after the dip because it indicates that plywood manufacturing in general is likely the cause of the ailments. Thus, it indicates that, before complying with the regulations, Woodco was likely responsible for the ailments that were occurring at that time.

Pikachuu · Answer

A. Over the last decade, a series of studies linking respiratory ailments to dietary deficiencies has been published – opposite. It strengthens the conclusion.  
 
  B. Seven years ago, the Woodco plant installed equipment to increase production capacity without increasing annual pollutant emissions. – Irrelevant  
 
  C. Pollutant emissions at Woodco plywood plants in other towns have declined during the past twelve years – emissions in other towns are irrelevant  
 
  D. Nine years ago, a competing plywood manufacturer opened a plant just across the river from Woodco’s plant. – Less sexy – it says – today, competing plant may be causing lungs ailments but before the competing plant, we have no reason to believe that woodco was not responsible – correct
  
  E. There are more facilities for treating respiratory ailments in Loganville today than there were eleven years ago – irrelevant – we are concerned with rates of ailment. Even if a case is treated, there is still one report of ailment – or maybe it strengthens the conclusion that the rate of ailments is really rising even after better treatment

adarsh2000 · Answer

MartyMurray

Since the new plant was opened after the emissions laws were enacted, then they wont be releasing the ailment causing pollutants. Then how can the new plant be responsible?

MartyMurray · Answer

I suspect that many of us have wondered the same thing. So, here's how the new plant could still be the cause.

For one thing, the passage doesn't say that the regulations require completely eliminating emissions. So, it could be that, under the regulations, each plant still produces some emissions, with the result that the combined emissions of the two plants could be sufficient to cause the observed increase in the rate of respiratory ailments.

Also, (D) says that the new plant is "across the river" from the Woodco plant, meaning that it could be located in a different municipality that doesn't regulate emissions the way Loganville does.

In general, the correct answer to a Weaken question doesn't have to prove the conclusion incorrect. It just has to cast doubt on the conclusion. So, since it makes sense that emissions could, in whatever way, be coming from the new plant and have caused the increase in the rate of ailments, (D) effectively weakens the argument.

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Woodco Plywood Manufacturer: Ten years ago a study linked the high

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards