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

Redeem

pollution-control regulations

Expert replies
by maihuna » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:32 am
Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of
volatile organic compounds has been wasted
. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. This evidence is far from adequate,
however, since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built.

In the reasoning given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.
B. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
C. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide
support.
D. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning's
contention.
E. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that
position.
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by gmatmachoman » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:58 am
IMO E...
Join the discussion

by arorag » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:33 pm
confuse between D and E
Join the discussion

by okigbo » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 pm
I go with D. 2nd bold face is used to support contention and not position. OA?
Join the discussion

Re: pollution-control regulations

by singhag » Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:12 pm
maihuna wrote:Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of
volatile organic compounds has been wasted
. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. This evidence is far from adequate,
however, since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built.
IMO D

E state the second statment support the position where the position is the the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted

OA please
Join the discussion

by sanp_l » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:22 am
I go with Option D.

The second doesn't support the position but instead clearly supports the reasoning's contention.
Sandy
Join the discussion

by tanviet » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:00 am
A is correct

for Bold phrase question, alway ask yourself what are 2 opposite viewpoints, then you can realize evidence of each viewpoints

Bold phrase question appear at last and for me is not important. pls, focus on strengthening, weakening, assumption and inference question
Join the discussion

by hypermeganet » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:58 am
..
Last edited by hypermeganet on Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

Re: pollution-control regulations

by hypermeganet » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:06 am
maihuna wrote:Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of
volatile organic compounds has been wasted
. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. This evidence is far from adequate,
however, since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built.

In the reasoning given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.
B. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
C. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide
support.
D. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning's
contention.
E. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that
position.
A) The second bolded point is cited by the author not by "others." Wrong.
B) The second bold is evidence not a position. Wrong.
C) The second is not a position. Wrong.
D) Correct.
E) The evidence doesn't support the first position. Wrong.
Join the discussion

by gmatv09 » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:42 am
IMO D
Join the discussion

by arora007 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:50 pm
Its a close call between D and E, and eventhough OA is D , I believe the answer should be E.

My reasoning is...

boldface 1st part is same for D and E

"The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence"

"Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling:"

Now "evidence...in support...compelling:" the colon is used to indicate examples...over here it should be giving us EVIDENCE.

now...the boldface "over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built"
does it support the current position i.e. after the colon ie. D
or does it support the main position. ie. E

actually I am confused...what did i comprehend... HELP!!
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Join the discussion

by outreach » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:57 am
"however, since" before the second bold face introduces a counter premise
hence i choose D
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion

by arora007 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:29 am
okay... thats a good catch!
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Join the discussion

by FightWithGMAT » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:16 am
maihuna wrote:Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of
volatile organic compounds has been wasted
. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling: despite the money spent, annual emissions of these pollutants have been increasing steadily. This evidence is far from adequate,
however, since over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built.

In the reasoning given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is evidence that has been cited by others in support of that claim.
B. The first identifies a claim that the reasoning seeks to show is false; the second
is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide support.
C. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is a position for which the reasoning seeks to provide
support.
D. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence used to support the reasoning's
contention.
E. The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that
position.

The main conclusion that money has been wasted is flawed.
Second actually supports the main conclusion of the argument. Money has been used to build to new industries.
It is a counter of the first.
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:44 am
arora007 wrote:Its a close call between D and E, and eventhough OA is D , I believe the answer should be E.

My reasoning is...

boldface 1st part is same for D and E

"The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by the evidence"

"Critics of certain pollution-control regulations have claimed that the money spent over the last decade in order to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and of volatile organic compounds has been wasted. The evidence they offer in support of this claim might appear compelling:"

Now "evidence...in support...compelling:" the colon is used to indicate examples...over here it should be giving us EVIDENCE.

now...the boldface "over the last decade a substantial number of new industrial facilities that emit these pollutants have been built"
does it support the current position i.e. after the colon ie. D
or does it support the main position. ie. E

actually I am confused...what did i comprehend... HELP!!
i also chose D as you did, however after carefully reading, OA D is correct because E states that The first is a position that the reasoning contends is inadequately supported by
the evidence; the second is evidence that has been used to support that
position. but the second is not evidence used to support for the first position ", it support for this " evidence is far from adequate,
however, since"
Join the discussion