Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lak 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 industria 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.
OA: B
My question is:
The negation of C is:
1) There is a reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
or
2) There is a reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be effective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
or
3) There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be effective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
Thanks.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Assumption
This topic has expert replies
-
prateek9567
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:18 am
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
David@GMATPrepNow
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:52 pm
- Thanked: 53 times
- Followed by:21 members
Hi prateek9567,
Answer C contains a double-negative:
There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
Another way to express answer C without changing it's meaning is to remove both of the negatives:
There is reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be effective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa. (your second choice)
If we reverse this, we get the following:
There is NO reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be effective.
This is a nonsensical contradiction of what the passage already tells us is true, or at least is assumed to be true ("Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless."). We can eliminate C.
Answer C contains a double-negative:
There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.
Another way to express answer C without changing it's meaning is to remove both of the negatives:
There is reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be effective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa. (your second choice)
If we reverse this, we get the following:
There is NO reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be effective.
This is a nonsensical contradiction of what the passage already tells us is true, or at least is assumed to be true ("Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless."). We can eliminate C.
