Critical Reasoning

In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide with 148 days of unhealthy air after a report was published by the Environmental Protection Agency. In early 2010, a series of pollution control measures were enacted by local government. Still, that year the city recorded smog alerts on 153 days and 160 days the following year. In 2012, however, the number of smog alerts in Los Bernardinos dropped to 118. Air pollutants from cars, buses and trucks, particularly ground-level ozone and particulate matter, can worsen respiratory diseases and trigger asthma attacks. These pollutants have been measured by gas spectrography from 2009-2012.

Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Bernardinos between 2009 and 2012?

(A) The 2010 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Bernardinos were put into effect in 2012.

(B) In early 2012, the Pollution Control Board of Los Bernardinos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful.

(C) In early 2012, a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented.

(D) In 2011, the mayor of Los Bernardinos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures.

(E) Excess ozone and carbon monoxide (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area.

OA: C

I do not understand why the OA is C. I think It should be D. If the choice D is true pollution level should have been decreased in 2011. On the contrary, pollution level increased that year. On the other hand, choice C correctly explain the the plunge in the pollution level in 2012 in attributing it to more effective technology to measure the level.

(c) It does not mention that Los Bernardios bought it. If the statement was like " The city bought accurate gas spectrometer in 2012," it would have been correct.

sparkles3144 wrote:(c) It does not mention that Los Bernardios bought it. If the statement was like " The city bought accurate gas spectrometer in 2012," it would have been correct.

good catch sparkles3144!

But how does (D) catch the paradox. If D was true, then the pollution would increase in 2012 than decreasing

Practicegmat wrote:But how does (D) catch the paradox. If D was true, then the pollution would increase in 2012 than decreasing

Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Bernardinos between 2009 and 2012?

D) It increased in 2011. Statement D talks about why it might have increased in 2011.

In 2011, the mayor of Los Bernardinos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures.

In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide with 148 days of unhealthy air after a report was published by the Environmental Protection Agency. In early 2010, a series of pollution control measures were enacted by local government. Still, that year the city recorded smog alerts on 153 days and 160 days the following year. In 2012, however, the number of smog alerts in Los Bernardinos dropped to 118. Air pollutants from cars, buses and trucks, particularly ground-level ozone and particulate matter, can worsen respiratory diseases and trigger asthma attacks. These pollutants have been measured by gas spectrography from 2009-2012.

Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Bernardinos between 2009 and 2012?

A. The 2010 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Bernardinos were put into effect in 2012..........explains the paradox

B. In early 2012, the Pollution Control Board of Los Bernardinos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful.........................explains the paradox

C. In early 2012, a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented...........explains the paradox

D. In 2011, the mayor of Los Bernardinos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures.............does not explain why the smog alerts dropped if the pollution increased

E. Excess ozone and carbon monoxide (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area...........explains the paradox

Here is my analysis. Please explain why C is right and D is wrong.

Mechmeera wrote:In 2009, the city of Los Bernardinos ranked worst nationwide with 148 days of unhealthy air after a report was published by the Environmental Protection Agency. In early 2010, a series of pollution control measures were enacted by local government. Still, that year the city recorded smog alerts on 153 days and 160 days the following year. In 2012, however, the number of smog alerts in Los Bernardinos dropped to 118. Air pollutants from cars, buses and trucks, particularly ground-level ozone and particulate matter, can worsen respiratory diseases and trigger asthma attacks. These pollutants have been measured by gas spectrography from 2009-2012.

Which of the following statements, assuming that each is true, would be LEAST helpful in explaining the air pollution levels in Los Bernardinos between 2009 and 2012?

A. The 2010 air pollution control measures enacted in Los Bernardinos were put into effect in 2012..........explains the paradox

B. In early 2012, the Pollution Control Board of Los Bernardinos revised the scale used to determine the amount of air pollution considered unhealthful.........................explains the paradox

C. In early 2012, a new and far more accurate gas spectrometer was invented...........explains the paradox

D. In 2011, the mayor of Los Bernardinos was found to have accepted large campaign donations from local industries and to have exempted those same industries from air pollution control measures.............does not explain why the smog alerts dropped if the pollution increased

E. Excess ozone and carbon monoxide (some of the air pollution particulates measured) require a minimum of two years to break down naturally in the atmosphere above a given area...........explains the paradox

Here is my analysis. Please explain why C is right and D is wrong.

C isn't terribly helpful for the very simple reason that we have no idea if Los Bernardinos actually used this new spectrometer. Just because a technology is invented in a given year, doesn't necessarily mean that it will be widely adopted in the same year.

I don't love D as an explanation, but here's how it could make sense: pollution-reduction measures were adopted in 2010, yet pollution levels increased a bit in 2011 before decreasing dramatically in 2012. Well, if the mayor were exempting local industries from these measures in 2010 and 2011, it makes sense that pollution wouldn't have decreased during that time period. But if the mayor were caught allowing these exemptions in 2011, presumably those industries were no longer exempt in 2012, thus causing the pollution decrease that the problem mentions. (Note: I suspect this is the logic that the question-writer was using. But my feeling is that an official question would have made this more explicit. For that reason, I have some reservations about this question.)