Okay, here is another original question. Let me know what you think.
Politician: The nuclear power plant located in the state of Vermont should be re-licensed for another 20 years, because, although there have been some difficulties with the plant including the collapse of a cooling tower, leakage of radioactive material into groundwater, and misleading information supplied by the plant operators to state officials, none of these issues has been conclusively proven as leading to the kind of nuclear disaster the plant's opponents predict.
Which of the following best describes an assumption relied on by the politician?
A) Evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome is not sufficient to halt the activity that is the source of that outcome if the outcome cannot be proven conclusively.
B) Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusive prove a negative outcome must always become evidence that proves the negative outcome cannot occur.
C) A negative outcome is not deemed to have been sufficiently proven unless more than one independent line of reasoning points conclusively to that outcome.
D) An activity that has occurred at a particular location without a disaster should be allowed to continue, at that location, unless there is reason to believe that a future disaster, involving that activity at that location, is possible.
E) A positive outcome that is greater in magnitude than any possible negative outcome is sufficient reason to allow a legal activity to continue beyond the original period for which it was approved.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Nuclear Power Plant
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
-
debmalya_dutta
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
Ahh!! the language in the options was really convoluted 
... Am not really sure ..but I will go with A..
... Am not really sure ..but I will go with A..@Deb
-
debmalya_dutta
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
BTW... I am hoping with fingers crossed that such questions dont show up in my question set ...debmalya_dutta wrote:Ahh!! the language in the options was really convoluted
@Deb
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
The language is a little tougher than what you would see on test day! I meant for it to be...OA in a little while.
-
abhi84v
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:56 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Thanked: 7 times
- GMAT Score:770
Must say took me a lot longer to figure this one due to the language.
IMO B.
If B is negated, it says Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusively prove a negative outcome can never become evidence that proves the outcome cannot occur.
This gives the possibility that the outcome could occur which would not allow the nuclear plant to proceed.
In A it does not say anwywhere that the issues are a source of the outcome.
But again I may be wrong.
Looking forward to David's explanation here
IMO B.
If B is negated, it says Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusively prove a negative outcome can never become evidence that proves the outcome cannot occur.
This gives the possibility that the outcome could occur which would not allow the nuclear plant to proceed.
In A it does not say anwywhere that the issues are a source of the outcome.
But again I may be wrong.
Looking forward to David's explanation here
-
pnk
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:1 members
Very tough;
Argument using non-conclusivity of past evidence as evidence that disaster will not occur in future --so should be relicensed.
IMO B (I am suspicious of 'cannot' here ...but I think emphatic conclusion 'should' justify that)
Argument using non-conclusivity of past evidence as evidence that disaster will not occur in future --so should be relicensed.
IMO B (I am suspicious of 'cannot' here ...but I think emphatic conclusion 'should' justify that)
-
diebeatsthegmat
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:3 members
i chose DDavid@VeritasPrep wrote:Okay, here is another original question. Let me know what you think.
Politician: The nuclear power plant located in the state of Vermont should be re-licensed for another 20 years, because, although there have been some difficulties with the plant including the collapse of a cooling tower, leakage of radioactive material into groundwater, and misleading information supplied by the plant operators to state officials, none of these issues has been conclusively proven as leading to the kind of nuclear disaster the plant's opponents predict.
Which of the following best describes an assumption relied on by the politician?
A) Evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome is not sufficient to halt the activity that is the source of that outcome if the outcome cannot be proven conclusively.
B) Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusive prove a negative outcome must always become evidence that proves the negative outcome cannot occur.
C) A negative outcome is not deemed to have been sufficiently proven unless more than one independent line of reasoning points conclusively to that outcome.
D) An activity that has occurred at a particular location without a disaster should be allowed to continue, at that location, unless there is reason to believe that a future disaster, involving that activity at that location, is possible.
E) A positive outcome that is greater in magnitude than any possible negative outcome is sufficient reason to allow a legal activity to continue beyond the original period for which it was approved.
as i understood the polician stated that nuclear company in THIS location must be allowed to continue at least 20 years.
although something bad happened but its not proved to be a disaster for this location and so any activisty of a company happened in this location gave non real disaster should be allowed to continue unless there are some reasonable evidences which can prove that the nuclear company could make future disaster.
I would say that the answer is definitely "A". This is because "A" mentions a negative outcome that is not conclusively proven, which would refer to the nuclear disaster that the politician says is not proven conclusively by any of the difficulties, and therefore is not sufficient to halt the activity (the activity being the licensing of the power plant).
What is the OA?
What is the OA?
-
jerseygirl
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:54 am
- Thanked: 1 times
i choose ADavid@VeritasPrep wrote:Okay, here is another original question. Let me know what you think.
Politician: The nuclear power plant located in the state of Vermont should be re-licensed for another 20 years, because, although there have been some difficulties with the plant including the collapse of a cooling tower, leakage of radioactive material into groundwater, and misleading information supplied by the plant operators to state officials, none of these issues has been conclusively proven as leading to the kind of nuclear disaster the plant's opponents predict.
Which of the following best describes an assumption relied on by the politician?
A) Evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome is not sufficient to halt the activity that is the source of that outcome if the outcome cannot be proven conclusively.
B) Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusive prove a negative outcome must always become evidence that proves the negative outcome cannot occur.
C) A negative outcome is not deemed to have been sufficiently proven unless more than one independent line of reasoning points conclusively to that outcome.
D) An activity that has occurred at a particular location without a disaster should be allowed to continue, at that location, unless there is reason to believe that a future disaster, involving that activity at that location, is possible.
E) A positive outcome that is greater in magnitude than any possible negative outcome is sufficient reason to allow a legal activity to continue beyond the original period for which it was approved.
A) Evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome is not sufficient to halt the activity that is the source of that outcome if the outcome cannot be proven conclusively. If evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome (such as the ones the politician listed) were sufficient to halt the activity, the politician's argument would be nuked.
B) Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusive prove a negative outcome must always become evidence that proves the negative outcome cannot occur. The wording, "must always," kills it for me. So what if the insufficient evidence listed sometimes does not become evidence that proves the negative outcome cannot occur?
C) A negative outcome is not deemed to have been sufficiently proven unless more than one independent line of reasoning points conclusively to that outcome. I don't see other independent line of reasoning...just evidences listed...
D) An activity that has occurred at a particular location without a disaster should be allowed to continue, at that location, unless there is reason to believe that a future disaster, involving that activity at that location, is possible. The statement is too normative and prescriptive.
E) A positive outcome that is greater in magnitude than any possible negative outcome is sufficient reason to allow a legal activity to continue beyond the original period for which it was approved. The politician's reasoning doesn't touch on positive outcomes...His assumption is based on past evidences' not leading to a disaster.[/b]
A) Evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome (collapse of a cooling tower, leakage of radioactive material into groundwater) is not sufficient to halt the activity that is the source of that outcome if the outcome cannot be proven conclusively (none of these issues has been conclusively proven). A is correct.
B) Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusive prove a negative outcome must always become evidence that proves the negative outcome cannot occur. B is wrong because it is proven that the negative outcome has occurred. We don't know if it will occur in future or not. What is not proven is if the negative outcome should be labeled as nuclear disaster and be a ground for the halt.
C) A negative outcome is not deemed to have been sufficiently proven unless more than one independent line of reasoning points conclusively to that outcome. Again C is wrong for the same reason. The negative outcome has occurred. Furthermore, it is not mentioned if we need additional line of reasoning.
D) An activity that has occurred at a particular location without a disaster should be allowed to continue, at that location, unless there is reason to believe that a future disaster, involving that activity at that location, is possible. D is close to be a correct answer. Except, it uses "disaster" instead of "nuclear disaster". Also, in the end, the author mentioned that the opponent always predicted that there could be some nuclear disaster. Inspite of that prediction, the nuclear plant was functional till now. If this were an assumption, the plant would have stopped a long time ago.
E) A positive outcome that is greater in magnitude than any possible negative outcome is sufficient reason to allow a legal activity to continue beyond the original period for which it was approved. E is wrong and out of context.
B) Evidence that is not sufficient to conclusive prove a negative outcome must always become evidence that proves the negative outcome cannot occur. B is wrong because it is proven that the negative outcome has occurred. We don't know if it will occur in future or not. What is not proven is if the negative outcome should be labeled as nuclear disaster and be a ground for the halt.
C) A negative outcome is not deemed to have been sufficiently proven unless more than one independent line of reasoning points conclusively to that outcome. Again C is wrong for the same reason. The negative outcome has occurred. Furthermore, it is not mentioned if we need additional line of reasoning.
D) An activity that has occurred at a particular location without a disaster should be allowed to continue, at that location, unless there is reason to believe that a future disaster, involving that activity at that location, is possible. D is close to be a correct answer. Except, it uses "disaster" instead of "nuclear disaster". Also, in the end, the author mentioned that the opponent always predicted that there could be some nuclear disaster. Inspite of that prediction, the nuclear plant was functional till now. If this were an assumption, the plant would have stopped a long time ago.
E) A positive outcome that is greater in magnitude than any possible negative outcome is sufficient reason to allow a legal activity to continue beyond the original period for which it was approved. E is wrong and out of context.
-
pradeepkaushal9518
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
- Thanked: 33 times
- Followed by:5 members
nuclear plant to be relicensed for 20 years,
some difficulties occured and plant opeartors supplied wrong information to officials. these cannt be proven conclusively
Assumption could be " Evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome( nuclear disater) is not sufficient to halt the activity (power plant) that is the source of that outcome if the outcome cannot be proven conclusively'
i will also go with A
E also looks better but can not be the main assumption
some difficulties occured and plant opeartors supplied wrong information to officials. these cannt be proven conclusively
Assumption could be " Evidence that indicates a possible negative outcome( nuclear disater) is not sufficient to halt the activity (power plant) that is the source of that outcome if the outcome cannot be proven conclusively'
i will also go with A
E also looks better but can not be the main assumption
A SMALL TOWN GUY
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
OA is A.
Nice job on this one....some very good explanations! I will add my own explanation in just a little bit.
Nice job on this one....some very good explanations! I will add my own explanation in just a little bit.
