CR

[Geetha hathikal]

Columnist: Much of North America and western Europe is more heavily forested and has less acid rain and better air quality now than five years ago. Though this may be due largely to policies advocated by environmentalists, it nonetheless lends credibility to the claims of people who reject predictions of imminent ecological doom and argue that environmental policies that excessively restrict the use of natural resources may diminish the wealth necessary to adopt and sustain the policies that brought about these improvements. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the columnist's reasoning? (A) Nations sustain their wealth largely through industrial use of the natural resources found within their boundaries.  (B) The more advanced the technology used in a nation's industries, the greater is that nation's ability to devote a portion of its resources to social programs.  (C) A majority of ecological disasters arise from causes that are beyond human control.  (D) If a compromise between the proponents of economic growth and the environmentalists had been enacted rather than the current policies, the environment would have seen significantly less improvement.  (E) The concern demonstrated by a nation for the health and integrity of it natural ecosystems leads to an increase in that nation's wealth.  Thanks Geetha

[Kevin Mascarenhas]

A seems to be the better answer.

 

Took couple of extra time to analyse between A and E.
I guess important point is, What is the conclusion?

 

Though this may be due largely to policies advocated by environmentalists

or

it nonetheless lends credibility to the claims of people who....and argue that environmental policies that excessively restrict the use of natural resources may diminish the wealth necessary

 

2nd one is the right conclusion.

 

Looking at options:

A-supports

 

B- tech and social programs..Irrelevant.

 

C disasters - junk answer.

 

D- talks abt improvement of environment. - irrelevant.

 

E- says.. showing concern to abt environment -> sustains wealth.

showing concern to env would mean implementing policies leading to sustain of wealth... this is acutally weakens the argument.

 

Let me know the OA.

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GMAT Toppers" group.
To post to this group, send email to gmat-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gmat-toppers...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gmat-toppers?hl=en.

--

Cheers!

 

Kevin..

SkypeID: KevinMasci

FB: kevin...@gmail.com

LinkedIn: http://in.linkedin.com/in/kevinmascarenhas

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Kripa Tewari]

IMO A too.

 

Regards

Kripa

[Geetha hathikal]

A confidential survey revealed that 75 percent of the employees of Company P are dissatisfied with their jobs. However, an investigation into working conditions at the company showed nothing uncommonly bad. Therefore, Company P’s consulting firm concluded that the employees’ dissatisfaction must result from an unusually high incidence of psychological problems on their part.

Each of the following, if true, casts doubt on the consulting firm’s conclusion EXCEPT:

(A) In the investigation of working conditions,no account was taken of the fact that for the past year many Company P employees worked on a joint venture with Company O,at Company O’s facilities.

(B) Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.

(C) The consulting firm’s conception of what constitutes uncommonly bad working conditions is not identical to that of Company P’s employees.

(D) The reasons given by Company P’s employees for their dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee.

(E) A battery of sets performed on Company P’s employees one month ago revealed no significant psychological stresses or problems.

What is answer and Why?

Thanks

Geetha

[Kevin Mascarenhas]

IMO it is D

 

In D: Dissatisfaction varied from employee to employee.

Conclusion is : employees’ dissatisfaction must result from an unusually high incidence of psychological problems on their part and NoT Working conditions. We need to weaken it to eliminate all options.

 

If it was Working conditions, Since All employees experience the same bad condition, the dissatisfaction should be same in all employees and should not be different.

D rather supports the conclusion mentioning that employees dissatisfaction varies from employees to employess showing tht is it psychological problem of each individual employee and not common bad environment.

 

Unfortunately, I had picked E at the first instance but while writing points for D in this mail i realised I was contradicting myself and changed my answer. :(

I chose E because, a test performed 1 month back does not necessarily mean that it is not the cause NOW. But i guess it still gives a hint compared to option D

 

 

Thanks for this question.

Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GMAT Toppers" group.
To post to this group, send email to gmat-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gmat-toppers...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gmat-toppers?hl=en.

[Geetha hathikal]

How about B?

(B) Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.

This doesnt cast any doubt on the conclusion right? It directly says no problems with working conditions.

[Kevin Mascarenhas]

hmm.. it is tough indeed .

 

Look at this way .. not sure if it is right. 

Author says that the just because working conditions are fine in company P employees have psychological prob which makes them dissatisfied.

It is like someone argues that -  Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no problems in working condition.Would that mean all those so many companies employees  have psychological problems. It creates a doubt that psychological prob might not be the actual reason.

 

--Kevin

 

 

It weakens by comparing Company P with other data

[Geetha hathikal]

Cool.. 

Many companies might not be referring to company P, we can eliminate on that basis too. Right?

Thanks Kevin. That was really helpful.

Geetha

[Kevin Mascarenhas]

if we look at the way u said.. that many companies might not be referring to company P. it would be a junk answer since it is EXCEPT question becomes the right answer.  :)
So we cant eliminate that way.. i too thought tht for a while.. hehe

[Geetha hathikal]

If it is a Junk answer we don't consider it at all :) 

But in an except question there cant be any junk answer in the choices( i guess).

So we cant eliminate choices as Junk answer in except questions. Ok i get it now.