OG 13: respiratory ailments

[himu]

I saw a post already but I have a different Q not answered in the previuos post so pls help me with this.Thanks in adv


Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants
released by the Woodco plywood manufacturing plant there. To address the problem, the government imposed
strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years. Although Woodco plans to cut its
emissions in half two years ahead of schedule, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory ailments will decline
before the regulations go into effect, since
(A)
the number of facilities capable of treating respiratory ailments is not likely to increase
(B)
reducing emissions even further than planned would necessitate decreasing production at Woodco
(C)
it is difficult to make accurate, long-term predictions about emissions
(D)
not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants
(E)
three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston

[himu]

The OA is E

whereas D says : not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants.

Now my Q is the premise is "To address the problem of respiratory ailments , the government imposed
strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years" .
Now if we select E even if "new three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston " which are **OTHER** than Woodco plywood manufacturing plant doesn't it lead us to mean that the strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON THESE OTHER NEW PLYWOOD PLANTS ???

Here we are just assuming that the strict regulations on emissions by the government will be easily overridden?


Pls help.

[avik.ch]

problem ---- > action ----> prediction.

whenever there is a prediction the central assumption is that the condition will remain same for the prediction to work. E changes the condition.

The OA is E

whereas D says : not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants.

Now my Q is the premise is "To address the problem of respiratory ailments , the government imposed
strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years" .
Now if we select E even if "new three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston " which are **OTHER** than Woodco plywood manufacturing plant doesn't it lead us to mean that the strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON THESE OTHER NEW PLYWOOD PLANTS ???

Here we are just assuming that the strict regulations on emissions by the government will be easily overridden?

the government plan is not overridden, its well in place as Woodco reduced their emission. But with other plants coming up - the condition changes. Note that the law is on restricting emission, not on the number of plants, and this is the main flaw.

D is outside the scope - if the argument deals with X, then discussing about "not X" is outside the scope of the argument.

Hope this helps !!

[lunarpower]

The OA is E

whereas D says : not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants.

Now my Q is the premise is "To address the problem of respiratory ailments , the government imposed
strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years" .
Now if we select E even if "new three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston " which are **OTHER** than Woodco plywood manufacturing plant doesn't it lead us to mean that the strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON THESE OTHER NEW PLYWOOD PLANTS ???

Here we are just assuming that the strict regulations on emissions by the government will be easily overridden?


Pls help.

check out the last sentence of the passage again ... the issue is what will happen before the regulations go into effect.
i.e., after woodco cuts its emissions -- but before the new rules come into force.

[stevennu]

I'm having trouble understanding why E is correct. In order for E to be correct don't we have to assume that the three plywood manufacturing plants will be completed and operating before the 4 year regulation deadline? If they are under production for 4 years 1 month, they will all be subject to the regulations. You have to assume that the 3 new plants will go into production and be online within 4 years. Am I being unreasonable here? I originally selected B but after closer examination, I would have probably selected E since I would have eliminated the other 4 choices.

[lunarpower]

I'm having trouble understanding why E is correct. In order for E to be correct don't we have to assume that the three plywood manufacturing plants will be completed and operating before the 4 year regulation deadline?

yes, you do have to assume that.

but, in choice (e), the words "about to..." imply reasonably enough that this is the case. if a factory isn't scheduled to open for another 4+ years, no reasonable person (barring english learners who might not know the phrase well enough) would describe that situation as "This factory is about to open".

--

[lunarpower]

more generally, just about every single strengthening/weakening/evaluating/explaining problem on this test WILL require additional, reasonable, ordinary-person-on-the-street assumptions.
in fact, that's the entire point of these problems -- you can't solve them by "rules" or "formal logic", but you can solve them if you interpret the problem statements as "the crowd" would.

here you aren't really making any additional assumptions; you just have to interpret the language of the answer choice in a certain way.
on the other hand, you do have to make assumptions to get these problems to work. for instance,
* in og12 #109 (which i think is og13 #110) -- the "fire alarm call box" problem -- you have to assume that people won't do bad things as much if they know there's a high risk of being caught.
* in og12 #65 (which i think is og13 #64) -- the "kourion" problem -- you have to dismiss other explanations for the sudden cessation of coin production in the correct answer choice. (Did they suddenly switch to paper money in that year? Not strictly unreasonable, but... nah. Did a particularly smart emperor recognize the signs of inflation, and put a halt to the coin production to forestall that inflation? Again, not strictly unreasonable, but, let's keep our feet on the ground here.)

etc.
be VERY careful that you are not being too "academic" or "nitpicky" about reading CR problems. that's exactly the mentality they are designed to thwart.

[stevennu]

more generally, just about every single strengthening/weakening/evaluating/explaining problem on this test WILL require additional, reasonable, ordinary-person-on-the-street assumptions.
in fact, that's the entire point of these problems -- you can't solve them by "rules" or "formal logic", but you can solve them if you interpret the problem statements as "the crowd" would.

here you aren't really making any additional assumptions; you just have to interpret the language of the answer choice in a certain way.
on the other hand, you do have to make assumptions to get these problems to work. for instance,
* in og12 #109 (which i think is og13 #110) -- the "fire alarm call box" problem -- you have to assume that people won't do bad things as much if they know there's a high risk of being caught.
* in og12 #65 (which i think is og13 #64) -- the "kourion" problem -- you have to dismiss other explanations for the sudden cessation of coin production in the correct answer choice. (Did they suddenly switch to paper money in that year? Not strictly unreasonable, but... nah. Did a particularly smart emperor recognize the signs of inflation, and put a halt to the coin production to forestall that inflation? Again, not strictly unreasonable, but, let's keep our feet on the ground here.)

etc.
be VERY careful that you are not being too "academic" or "nitpicky" about reading CR problems. that's exactly the mentality they are designed to thwart.

I think I had a difference in interpretation. I took "into production" to mean that the plants are about to be constructed (i.e. the walls are about to be produced along with the foundation, etc.). The question probably meant that the plants are about to start producing plywood. Is that how you interpret the question?

[lunarpower]

I think I had a difference in interpretation. I took "into production" to mean that the plants are about to be constructed (i.e. the walls are about to be produced along with the foundation, etc.). The question probably meant that the plants are about to start producing plywood. Is that how you interpret the question?

you have a decent point here, i guess.
i wouldn't have thought of this interpretation, but, then again, i am not a very literal reader. (fun fact about ron: i'm dyslexic, to the extent that i'm actually incapable of reading a sentence straight through from left to right. so, if you wrote something like "the elephant is smaller than the mouse", i would probably misread that as saying the elephant is bigger, because that's what common sense would dictate.)

but ... this is a GMAC problem.
if this is indeed a retired official problem (as is claimed), then it has passed the "experimental" stage without being rejected -- meaning that the wording of the statement was clear enough for "the crowd" of test takers to understand it. so, unfortunately, this is just one of those instances when your mind is inexplicably marching to a different beat.
meh. these things, they happen.
shrug shoulders. move on with your life.

--

[lunarpower]

i did, however, notice that you're not arguing in favor of any of the other answer choices.
see, that's the saving grace here: these are multiple-choice problems. so, if you have a quibble about one of the answer choices, then you need to put your money on another choice, or else there's not much validity in the complaint.

in this case, again, i can see what you mean here, and i agree that the wording is a little weird. (not crazy, but a little weird.)
however, unless one of the other answer choices actually looked good enough for you to pick it INSTEAD of this one, this should have been a non-issue -- you should have disliked all those other choices enough to return to (e) and say, "hmm, ok, maybe this doesn't mean what i thought it meant the first time."

i mean, myself, i misread these things all the time. (dyslexia is fun!) so i'm not just talking at you here -- this is a process that i go through myself on practically every single problem.
"ok, i think this means xxxx."
"wait a minute ..."
etc.
so, yeah. just remember that, at the end of the day, one of the answer choices has to be the correct answer choice.

[stevennu]

i did, however, notice that you're not arguing in favor of any of the other answer choices.
see, that's the saving grace here: these are multiple-choice problems. so, if you have a quibble about one of the answer choices, then you need to put your money on another choice, or else there's not much validity in the complaint.

in this case, again, i can see what you mean here, and i agree that the wording is a little weird. (not crazy, but a little weird.)
however, unless one of the other answer choices actually looked good enough for you to pick it INSTEAD of this one, this should have been a non-issue -- you should have disliked all those other choices enough to return to (e) and say, "hmm, ok, maybe this doesn't mean what i thought it meant the first time."

i mean, myself, i misread these things all the time. (dyslexia is fun!) so i'm not just talking at you here -- this is a process that i go through myself on practically every single problem.
"ok, i think this means xxxx."
"wait a minute ..."
etc.
so, yeah. just remember that, at the end of the day, one of the answer choices has to be the correct answer choice.

My original answer was (B), however I see how that was wrong. I originally selected it because I reasoned that the plant would not cut emissions to the point that it would decrease their production and impact their profitiability without a government imposed mandate. However this would not explain why even though the plant is cutting emisions by 1/2, the rate of respiratory ailments is unchanged.

Thanks for the feedback. Good talk

[lunarpower]

you're welcome!