CR - Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very

[jlucero]

For the record, the question you pose is a quasi-reworded question based on an OG problem dealing with the country of Malvernia. As such, it's not worth fretting over a question that someone poorly reproduced.

That said, the only mention of "fuel usage" in the argument is that the country is converting heating systems. It doesn't say anything about fuel consumption rising/staying steady/dropping. Therefore, it is necessary to address this variable staying constant for us to say we will be able to rely less in the future on foreign fuel.

We are making more fuel.
We are converting some things from oil to natural gas.
(Assumption: We are not using more and more fuel each year)
Therefore, we will rely less on foreign fuel.

[pnf619]

I was stuck between C and D couldn't decide which one to pick...

[tim]

thanks for sharing. do you have a question about this one?

[khushbumerchant]

I recently came across this question in gmat prep test, however, it was 'weaken' question type with different options. I want to ask about it, so should I post that question here (since the main passage is same as above) with the different option that I have come across or should I start a new thread?

Note: I am new to this forum, so my question may sound a bit naive, but I have seen the instructor pressing on importance of posting relevant questions in a thread.

[tim]

If the question is actually different (i.e., ANYTHING about it is different), you should post it in a different thread. Thanks for asking, and welcome to the forum!

[harishmullapudi]

I picked A when i was doing the exam. but i have problems eliminating option E, which says "The species of fish that are present in Lake Konfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution."

My argument is, since we are talking about the fish that were effected by water pollution before, we have to talk about the same fish(i mean the same species of the fish) after these oil pipelines are constructed.

Can you please help...

[StaceyKoprince]

The argument talks only about "fish populations" declining, not about any particular species. It's not necessary for any fish being affected by pollution to be the same species as 10, 20, 50 years ago. They're still fish, they're still in the lake, and they would still be affected by pollution, regardless of species.

[onkipak]

Hi Instructors,

I don't understand why D is wrong.

D. Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.

If leaking oil will only reduce fish population, now the problem is solved as the new technology is effective, then the fare is groundless.

Please kindly explain.

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

The argument says, "Provided that the technology is effective..."
If you don't like "provided", replace it with "if". Same deal.

If someone's point is "If x happens, then y will happen", then only situations in which x happens are relevant. You simply don't care at all about situations in which x doesn't happen"”that's the whole point of "if".

E.g.,
If you move to Los Angeles, you'll be happier.
Regardless of whom I'm talking to, I'd be making a lot of assumptions in making this statement. However, I would be making NO assumptions whatsoever about what would happen if the person did NOT move to Los Angeles.
As soon as I've uttered the words "If you move to L.A.", all other situations are completely off the table.

Here, "the technology" means "ways to prevent leaks".
So, "the technology is effective" = "there won't be leaks".
So, we don't care at all about what happens if there are leaks. We're exclusively discussing the situation if there are not any leaks.