Mud from a lake on an uninhabited wooded island

[BTGmoderatorDC]

Mud from a lake on an uninhabited wooded island in northern Lake Superior contains toxic chemicals, including toxaphene, a banned pesticide for cotton that previously was manufactured and used, not in nearby regions of Canada or the northern United States, but in the southern United States. No dumping has occurred on the island. The island lake is sufficiently elevated that water from Lake Superior does not reach it.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which of the following hypotheses?

(A) The waters of the island lake are more severely polluted than those of Lake Superior.
(B) The toxaphene was carried to the island in the atmosphere by winds.
(C) Banning chemicals such as toxaphene does not aid the natural environment.
(D) Toxaphene has adverse effects on human beings but not on other organisms.
(E) Concentrations of toxaphene in the soil of cotton-growing regions are not sufficient of be measurable.

[deloitte247]

Option A
The statement is directly the opposite of the writer's position. Here, the waters of the island lake are elevated so that the polluted lake superior ones won't infiltrate it. This option is wrong

option B
This statement is aided by diffusion action and ability of the pesticides to be transported via air/wind, absence of which would aid a healthy and natural environment. This is correct

option C
Banning such toxic chemicals means it constitutes a major hazard to the environment. By so doing, a healthier, friendlier and cleaner environment would have aided. It weakens the writer's opinion and negates the topic content. This is incorrect

option D
"Uninhabited" means unoccupied, this means the island is not a living haven for the human species and as such would not be confronted with such environment hazards. This alone leaves us with no doubt as to the position of the author that it's such a negative affirmation. This is wrong

option E
Here, the magnitude, quantity and/or level of toxicity is and should not be for debate but the adverse devastation it would wreck on the natural facilities. This is wrong

[Brent@GMATPrepNow]

Mud from a lake on an uninhabited wooded island in northern Lake Superior contains toxic chemicals, including toxaphene, a banned pesticide for cotton that previously was manufactured and used, not in nearby regions of Canada or the northern United States, but in the southern United States. No dumping has occurred on the island. The island lake is sufficiently elevated that water from Lake Superior does not reach it.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which of the following hypotheses?

(A) The waters of the island lake are more severely polluted than those of Lake Superior.
(B) The toxaphene was carried to the island in the atmosphere by winds.
(C) Banning chemicals such as toxaphene does not aid the natural environment.
(D) Toxaphene has adverse effects on human beings but not on other organisms.
(E) Concentrations of toxaphene in the soil of cotton-growing regions are not sufficient of be measurable.

PREMISE: Island lake contains toxic chemicals
PREMISE: The chemicals were not dumped in the lake, and water from Lake Superior cannot reach the lake

We want to find the most reasonable conclusion that follows from this information

(A) The waters of the island lake are more severely polluted than those of Lake Superior.
The passage does not contain any information regarding the pollution levels of Lake Superior.
Eliminate A

(B) The toxaphene was carried to the island in the atmosphere by winds.
The passage tells us that there is toxaphene in the lake, and it also tells us that the chemical could not have reached the lake via two methods. So the chemical must be reaching the island lake in some other way. This answer choice suggests one of those possible ways. Although it's only one possible way for the chemical to reach the lake, we cannot dismiss it. So we will leave answer choice B for now

(C) Banning chemicals such as toxaphene does not aid the natural environment.
There is nothing in the passage that would suggest that this is true. If anything, it seems that banning toxaphene WOULD help the environment.
Eliminate C

(D) Toxaphene has adverse effects on human beings but not on other organisms.
There is nothing in the passage that supports this claim.
Eliminate D

(E) Concentrations of toxaphene in the soil of cotton-growing regions are not sufficient of be measurable
There is nothing in the passage that supports this claim.
Eliminate E

By the process of elimination we are left with only one answer choice.

Answer: B

Cheers,
Brent