pollution-control regulations

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

pollution-control regulations

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 :)
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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

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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:28 pm
Thanked: 4 times

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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:39 pm
Thanked: 6 times

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?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:56 pm
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:720

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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

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

Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

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

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:41 am
Thanked: 2 times

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.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:41 am
Thanked: 2 times

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.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:31 pm
Thanked: 3 times

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

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

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!!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

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/

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

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!!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

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.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

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"