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

Redeem

Strengthen

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:07 am
Thanked: 2 times

Strengthen

by beater » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:02 am
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 hypothesis?

(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 to be measurable

OA - B
Last edited by beater on Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:01 pm
IMO B, 'cause others seem too beyond the scope. What is OA ?
we are the champions !
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:08 pm
E

A) out of scope. no comparison made b/w island lake and lake superior

B) correct. stimulus says no dumping, no deposits from the lake, so it can be out of scope. cant conclude if wind blew the toxaphene to the island, we dont know if the island had any toxaphene at all

C) too broad and out of scope

D) out of scope. effect on humans and other organisms not discussed

E) correct. if the lake did not deposit on the island, no dumping on the island was done, it can be roughly predicted that the island had almost no toxaphene
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:21 pm
agree with s0laris.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:01 pm
But there is no mention of that island is a "cotton-growing region", moreover it isn't defined that toxins were determined in soil of island, how it can be measured ? and stimulus is not concentating on measurement of the toxin. What is the source ?
we are the champions !
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:10 pm
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:600

by dendude » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:19 pm
I arrive at E too, by POE.

(A) The waters of the island lake are more severely polluted than those of Lake Superior. - if you look carefully in the argument you will notice that there is no mention of Lake Superior being contaminated at all. So measuring against Lake Superior is not in scope.
(B) The toxaphene was carried to the island in the atmosphere by winds - seems likely, but the question says based on the above which hypothesis is most strongly supported. This hypothesis though likely is more fanciful
(C) Banning chemicals such as toxaphene does not aid the natural environment. - Clearly tangential to the scope
(D) Toxaphene has adverse effects on human beings but not on other organisms. - Again, tangential to the scope
(E) Concentrations of toxaphene in the soil of cotton-growing regions are not sufficient to be measurable - Most probable hypothesis. The pesticide used on Cotton crops did not actually contain as much toxaphene as suggested by the argument. So its possible that the mud on the island actually contained a miniscule amount of toxaphene
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:37 pm
dendude wrote:I arrive at E too, by POE.


(E) Concentrations of toxaphene in the soil of cotton-growing regions are not sufficient to be measurable - .........The pesticide used on Cotton crops did not actually contain as much toxaphene as suggested by the argument. So its possible that the mud on the island actually contained a miniscule amount of toxaphene
1.Would U be so kind and past the excerpt from the argument which suggests any indication on amount or proportion of toxaphene found in the mud ?
2. Even if it does, how it been found if it's not measurable ?
maybe its 2am made me blind (
we are the champions !
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:10 pm
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:600

by dendude » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:44 pm
S0laris wrote:
dendude wrote:I arrive at E too, by POE.


(E) Concentrations of toxaphene in the soil of cotton-growing regions are not sufficient to be measurable - .........The pesticide used on Cotton crops did not actually contain as much toxaphene as suggested by the argument. So its possible that the mud on the island actually contained a miniscule amount of toxaphene
1.Would U be so kind and past the excerpt from the argument which suggests any indication on amount or proportion of toxaphene found in the mud ?
2. Even if it does, how it been found if it's not measurable ?
maybe its 2am made me blind (
Again, I arrive at E, by POE.
What I'm trying to indicate is that its possible that there was little or no toxaphene found on the island and the argument is a farce.
I'm kinda adopting the negative approach since I'm trying to stick to the argument as far as possible.
I may be wrong though.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:00 pm
Again, I arrive at E, by POE.
What I'm trying to indicate is that its possible that there was little or no toxaphene found on the island and the argument is a farce.
I like the way of POE either,
then how it's possible(according to POE) to disprove(according to stimulus) that there was a huge amount of toxaphene found and it was measurable ?
we are the champions !
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:56 am

by Musicolo » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:54 pm
Its B
what is the OA pls?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:10 pm
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:600

by dendude » Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:52 pm
S0laris wrote:
Again, I arrive at E, by POE.
What I'm trying to indicate is that its possible that there was little or no toxaphene found on the island and the argument is a farce.
I like the way of POE either,
then how it's possible(according to POE) to disprove(according to stimulus) that there was a huge amount of toxaphene found and it was measurable ?
OK. Let me rephrase.
E is the only answer option that does not mention anything that is not mentioned in the argument (and hence sticks as close as possible to the argument).

Once again, this is my view regarding the answer choice.
The OA and an experts comment could put things to rest. :?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:58 am

by vanessa.m » Sat May 14, 2016 2:41 am
I also think it's B
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1