BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

forth one

Expert replies
by goyalsau » Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:24 am
Q.4-
Since the passage of the state's Clear Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the rule restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that business decline, rather than regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
a) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.
b) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
c) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with Clean Air Act.
d) During the last ten year, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those with in state.
e) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by kvcpk » Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:57 am
IMO E.

half of the decline in pollution amounts to 18/2 = 9%.

option E says businesses account for only 5% pollution, which is less than 9%

Hence this weakens the authors claim.

what is OA?
"Once you start working on something,
don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it.
People who work sincerely are the happiest."
Chanakya quotes (Indian politician, strategist and writer, 350 BC-275BC)
Join the discussion

by Jim@Grockit » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:21 pm
kvcpk wrote:IMO E.

half of the decline in pollution amounts to 18/2 = 9%.

option E says businesses account for only 5% pollution, which is less than 9%

Hence this weakens the authors claim.

what is OA?
And just to be clear, it's 5% of the businesses who left were in polluting industries, not that they accounted for 5% of the pollution.
Join the discussion

by navami » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:49 am
Still E seems a strong contender. OA ?
Join the discussion

by scorpionz » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:47 am
None of the options are too convincing...

As Jim rightly pointed out, the question stem says 5% of the businesses were polluting industries. However, these 5% could very well have contributed 10% or even 15% of the total air pollution...

Having said that, E still remains to be the best alternative for a lack of better options..

OA Plz..??
Join the discussion

by lokesh r » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:51 pm
goyalsau wrote:Q.4-
Since the passage of the state's Clear Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the rule restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that business decline, rather than regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?
a) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.
b) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.
c) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with Clean Air Act.
d) During the last ten year, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those with in state.
e) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

IMO C.

Passage tells that, it is not the ACT but the business drop is responsible for decline in pollution. we will have to choose the options which contradicts above statement.

Clearly C contradicts.

OA plz..
Join the discussion

by paddle_sweep » Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:24 am
Join the discussion

by ankurmit » Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:13 am
IMO E
--------
Ankur mittal
Join the discussion