Enviromental threats

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Enviromental threats

by metallicafan » Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:54 am
At a recent conference on environmental threats to the North Sea, most participating countries favored uniform controls on the quality of effluents, whether or not specific environmental damage could be attributed to a particular source of effluent. What must, of course, be shown, in order to avoid excessively restrictive controls, is that ________________.

A. any uniform controls that are adopted are likely to be implemented without delay.
B. any substance to be made subject to controls can actually cause environmental damage.
C. the countries favoring uniform controls are those generating the largest quantities of effluents
D. all of any given pollutant that is to be controlled actually reaches the North Sea at present
E. environmental damage already inflicted on the North Sea is reversible.

Please explain the OA, and why not D?

OA: B
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
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

by David@VeritasPrep » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:37 pm
This is a "fill in the blank" question. You can treat this logically by focusing on the correct portions of the argument.

First, keep in mind that you are trying to "avoid excessively restrictive controls."

So, you need to have uniform controls on various "effluents" - it is not actually important to know what this is - so, controls on effluents, without being excessively restrictive.

What would be excessively restrictive? Well, in Vermont we are looking at putting a tax on soda and sugary drinks (gatorade) and so forth. The reason is public health and the desire for people to not drink so much and gain weight, etc.

Now what would be excessive in this regard? How about a tax on coffee that has no sugar, or tea, or water! You see if you are going to tax something in order to help guide people to choices that help them to not gain weight, well you want to show that the things you are taxing will actually cause weight gain! Taxing water would be excessive since it has no calories.

The same thing works here as well. If you are going to place an "effluent," which is like a discharge from an industry, under controls, you will need to show that the discharge is something that could actually harm the environment. I mean clean water can be a discharge and often is. To place limits on that would be excessive. So that is the OA.

As for D, firstly, the word "all" is a problem. Do I need to show that "all" of the nuclear contamination from the Fukishima plant in Japan is reaching the ocean? I mean is not "some" or even "most" bad enough? So that is against choice D from the start.

Also, I am not sure that ANY of the pollutant has to reach the north sea. It could kill animals that are important to the north sea. Like it could kill fish that usually go back to the sea. It could kill birds, etc.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course