Critical Reasoning

The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?

A) The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.

B) The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on the global ecology.

C) The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic

D) The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.

E) The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.

Kenen750 wrote:The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?

A) The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.

B) The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on the global ecology.

C) The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic

D) The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.

E) The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.

IMO A:

The answer choice should talk about both the incidents. Hence B,E ruled out. C states facts, but to relate that to the argument we need to draw the relation between the materials and the seriousness of the incident. D states the ecological damage has already been done.

IMO B

Answer should be A

delete A - there is no mention vhernobyl accident not taken seriously.
delete B - widespread not mentioned.
delete C - process not mentioned
delete D - effect dissipated not mention.
the left choice E

l tell the correct answer

Pl tell the correct answer.
what is OA

answer should be A

Kenen750 wrote:The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?

A) The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.

B) The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on the global ecology.

C) The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic

D) The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.

E) The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.

From the information in the passage:

The Kuwaiti oil-well fires turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.

The nuclear accident at Chernobyl turned out to be as serious an ecological disaster.


A) coveys it accurately.

IMO - D

Please post OA

IMO: A

shalinisingh wrote:Pl tell the correct answer.
what is OA

Hi Shalini


OA: Original Answer
IMO: In my opinion

Welcome to the community!!!
Cheers!!
Turbo Jet

turbo jet wrote:

shalinisingh wrote:Pl tell the correct answer.
what is OA

Hi Shalini


OA: Original Answer
IMO: In my opinion

Welcome to the community!!!
Cheers!!
Turbo Jet

OA is A???

I think its E

Hi Niaz,

"Have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events."

In choice E, the above phrase makes it doubtful. The above phrase throws up the possibility that the effects of Kuwait fires are yet to show up. Hence we cannot infer definitely from this that Kuwait fires have not been so severe. The effects may occur in the future making it more serious.

I believe that the answer is A as well. It leads to every aspect made in the inference.

Hi

I have got a point to make here, no where in the passage there is mention of :

The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously at first.

Dont you think we are assuming a lot through this sentence.

Could be they had taken seriously, but predictions were wrong about the worst possibilities.

Regards,
Nishit Shah