the pesticide TDX

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

the pesticide TDX

by gmatmachoman » Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:19 am
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Although the pesticide TDX has been widely used by fruit growers since the early
1960's, a regulation in force since 1960 has prohibited sale of fruit on which any TDX
residue can be detected. That regulation is about to be replaced by one that allows sale of
fruit on which trace amounts of TDX residue are detected. In fact, however, the change
will not allow more TDX on fruit than was allowed in the 1960's, because ______.

A. pre-1970 techniques for detecting TDX residue could detect it only when it was
present on fruit in more than the trace amounts allowed by the new regulations

B. many more people today than in the 1960's habitually purchase and eat fruit
without making an effort to clean residues off the fruit

C. people today do not individually consume any more pieces of fruit, on average,
than did the people in the 1960's

D. at least a small fraction of the fruit sold each year since the early 1960's has had
on it greater levels of TDX than the regulation allows

E. the presence of TDX on fruit in greater than trace amounts has not been shown to
cause any harm even to children who eat large amounts of fruit
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:38 am
Location: IIM Ahmedabad
Thanked: 10 times

by firdaus117 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:34 am
It's option A.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:38 am
Location: India
Thanked: 64 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760

by harsh.champ » Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:48 am
firdaus117 wrote:It's option A.
Hey firdaus,
Can you explain how you got A??
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)



Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.

"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker :P

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:38 am
Location: India
Thanked: 64 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760

by harsh.champ » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:04 am
gmatmachoman wrote:Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Although the pesticide TDX has been widely used by fruit growers since the early
1960's, a regulation in force since 1960 has prohibited sale of fruit on which any TDX
residue can be detected. That regulation is about to be replaced by one that allows sale of
fruit on which trace amounts of TDX residue are detected. In fact, however, the change
will not allow more TDX on fruit than was allowed in the 1960's, because ______.

A. pre-1970 techniques for detecting TDX residue could detect it only when it was
present on fruit in more than the trace amounts allowed by the new regulations-This is opposing the paragraph.

B. many more people today than in the 1960's habitually purchase and eat fruit
without making an effort to clean residues off the fruit-Irrelevant and opposing the statement.

C. people today do not individually consume any more pieces of fruit, on average,
than did the people in the 1960's

D. at least a small fraction of the fruit sold each year since the early 1960's has had
on it greater levels of TDX than the regulation allows-Supportive.

E. the presence of TDX on fruit in greater than trace amounts has not been shown to
cause any harm even to children who eat large amounts of fruit-Irelevant
IMO,D should be the answer.
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)



Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.

"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker :P

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:38 am
Location: IIM Ahmedabad
Thanked: 10 times

by firdaus117 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:20 am
harsh.champ wrote:
firdaus117 wrote:It's option A.
Hey firdaus,
Can you explain how you got A??
Earlier no traces of TDX were allowed.Now the law has been made less stringent allowing upto a permissible value of TDX(lets say 4 ppm for sake of argument).But since instruments in early 60's were not sophisticated enough to detect less than 4 ppm,those TDX were allowed earlier also.So,the amendment in law will not result into more use of TDX.Hence, A :D

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:38 am
Location: India
Thanked: 64 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760

by harsh.champ » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:27 am
firdaus117 wrote:
harsh.champ wrote:
firdaus117 wrote:It's option A.
Hey firdaus,
Can you explain how you got A??
Earlier no traces of TDX were allowed.Now the law has been made less stringent allowing upto a permissible value of TDX(lets say 4 ppm for sake of argument).But since instruments in early 60's were not sophisticated enough to detect less than 4 ppm,those TDX were allowed earlier also.So,the amendment in law will not result into more use of TDX.Hence, A :D
Look at the bold-faced part above.
This is the exact reason why even if 4ppm law was implemented in 1960 it was of no avail(It was better that they had implemented "No TDX" law)
Just look at the D option that I have highlighted.I find that more supportive.
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)



Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.

"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker :P

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:38 am
Location: IIM Ahmedabad
Thanked: 10 times

by firdaus117 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 am
harsh.champ wrote:
firdaus117 wrote:
Look at the bold-faced part above.
This is the exact reason why even if 4ppm law was implemented in 1960 it was of no avail(It was better that they had implemented "No TDX" law)
Just look at the D option that I have highlighted.I find that more supportive.
As far as option D is concerned,it acknowledges the fact that even with a strict law of no TDX traces,at least some amount of traces of TDX were found in the market.So on similar reasoning,it would mean with a milder law the traces beyond permissible levels will still come in market.
Let's wait for OA.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:38 am
Location: India
Thanked: 64 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760

by harsh.champ » Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:57 am
firdaus117 wrote:
harsh.champ wrote:
firdaus117 wrote:
Look at the bold-faced part above.
This is the exact reason why even if 4ppm law was implemented in 1960 it was of no avail(It was better that they had implemented "No TDX" law)
Just look at the D option that I have highlighted.I find that more supportive.
As far as option D is concerned,it acknowledges the fact that even with a strict law of no TDX traces,at least some amount of traces of TDX were found in the market.So on similar reasoning,it would mean with a milder law the traces beyond permissible levels will still come in market.
Let's wait for OA.
I totally agree.
But the point is that at that time you couldn't measure if it was 4ppm or 6ppm or 8ppm(whatever be the permissible limit)
Since now we have "I quote"
But since instruments in early 60's were not sophisticated enough to detect less than 4 ppm,those TDX were allowed earlier also-which means sensitivity of the instruments were low and a fruit containing 5ppm could have been pased in those days resulting in the statement D
so now the law officials can check the content(check whether it is greater than 4ppm) and arrest the products gng higher than the permissible limits.
I hope the OA is posted soon.
Hey gmatmachoman-Are you listening??
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)



Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.

"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker :P

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:12 pm
Location: South Korea
Thanked: 4 times

by sadullaevd » Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:20 pm
imo A

oa plz
Stay skeptical,
Think critically,
Assume nothing.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:39 pm
firdaus117 wrote:
harsh.champ wrote:
firdaus117 wrote:It's option A.
Hey firdaus,
Can you explain how you got A??
Earlier no traces of TDX were allowed.Now the law has been made less stringent allowing upto a permissible value of TDX(lets say 4 ppm for sake of argument).But since instruments in early 60's were not sophisticated enough to detect less than 4 ppm,those TDX were allowed earlier also.So,the amendment in law will not result into more use of TDX.Hence, A :D
OA : A

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:16 am
Can anyone please this one in more details i am still not clear

Thanks in advance

Regards,
Phil

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:30 am
Hi All,

Can anyone please explain the options A and D in more details

I am really confused on this one...

Regards,
Phil

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:32 pm
Start from the top.

What does the passage actually say?
- law preventing the sale of fruit detected as having TDX residues was in place in 1960
- new law allows small trace amounts of the residue
- new law is not better than the old one because... [insert argument here]

Please note that IMHO, "detected" is a key word here: the argument does not mention fruit which had no residue present, but to fruit that had no "detected" residue.

So it seems to me that people are arguing over options A and D. I also think it's A and here's why: if the instruments used to measure the presence of TDX residue could not detect it if it was below a certain level, then it is quite possible that farmers in the 1960s sold "contaminated" fruit, because there was just no way of discovering the contaminant. Use the example provided by someone above: if the detection level was 4 ppm, then anything below that level was labeled "clean" because of the lack of accurate measurement instruments. If today's standard is 4 ppm, then anything below that level is labeled "clean" because of the new regulation. Either way, the result is the same: fruit with residue under 4 ppm is labeled "clean" (albeit for different reasons).

Option D is incorrect here because we're talking about a small fraction. Remember that the law concerns ALL fruit sold on the market, so an exception simply reinforces the rule, so to speak.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:02 am
Thanked: 2 times

by Junebug » Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:00 pm
There are mainly 3 variables to make judgement on this question.

(1) Amount of TDX residue allowed by new regulation.
(2) Number of fruit that can be sold by (1)
(3) Inspection quality for (1)

We are looking for a support for the conclusion that (2) of now ≤ (2) of 60's

(A) pre-1970 techniques for detecting TDX residue could detect it only when it was present on fruit in more than the trace amounts allowed by the new regulations

Which means, (3) of now > (3) of 60's
Which means, the fruit passed inspection on 60's would not pass current inspection.
In reverse, the fruit cannot pass current inspection could pass 60's inspection.
Hence, we cannot be sure that (2) of now > (2) of 60's.
Hence, this option can support the conclusion, (2) of now ≤ (2) of 60's.

(D) at least a small fraction of the fruit sold each year since the early 1960's has had on it greater levels of TDX than the regulation allows

This simply means that (3) has not been perfect.
Which means, Inspection yield rate ≠100%.
This does not weaken the conclusion.
If (D) mentioned "very large portion of" instead of "at least a small fraction" it could gain "more possibility to weaken" conclusion, since this means that inspection itself is not reliable at all. So the result of inspection is unreliable too. But still it does not directly weakens conclusion, which is (2) of now ≤ (2) of 60's, it just strengthen that relationship between (2) of now and (2) of 60's can not be justified.

Legendary Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by mankey » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:58 am
Please explain this one.

Thanks.