A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants released by the Woodco...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants released by the Woodco plywood manufacturing plant there. To address the problem, the government imposed strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years. Although Woodco plans to cut its emissions in half two years ahead of schedule, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory ailments will decline before the regulations go into effect, since ______________.
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A recent government study links the high rates of respiratory ailments in Groverston to airborne pollutants released by the Woodco plywood manufacturing plant there. |
|
| To address the problem, the government imposed strict regulations on emissions which will go into effect in four years. |
|
| Although Woodco plans to cut its emissions in half two years ahead of schedule, it is unlikely that the rate of respiratory ailments will decline before the regulations go into effect, since ______. |
|
Argument Flow:
We start with a problem (pollution causing illness), then get a solution (government regulations in 4 years), then learn about faster action (Woodco cutting pollution in 2 years). But the author claims this faster action won't help health outcomes until the original 4-year timeline. The passage sets up a contradiction that needs explaining.
Main Conclusion:
The rate of respiratory ailments in Groverston won't decline before the government regulations officially take effect in 4 years, even though Woodco will cut emissions by half in just 2 years.
Logical Structure:
This is an incomplete argument asking us to fill in the gap. The structure is: [Problem established] → [Solution timeline given] → [Faster action described] → [Claim that faster action won't help] → BECAUSE [missing reason]. We need to find the logical reason why cutting emissions early won't improve health outcomes early.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Logically Completes - We need to find a reason that explains why respiratory ailments won't decline even though Woodco will cut emissions by 50% two years before the regulations take effect.
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve specific timing (2 years vs 4 years), quantity (50% emission reduction), and health outcomes (respiratory ailment rates). We need to respect that Woodco WILL reduce emissions early but ailments still WON'T improve until year 4.
Strategy
Since this is a 'Logically Completes' question, we need to find the missing piece that explains the puzzle. The puzzle is: if Woodco cuts emissions in half by year 2, why won't people's breathing problems get better until year 4? We need to think of realistic reasons why early pollution reduction wouldn't immediately translate to health improvements.
'the number of facilities capable of treating respiratory ailments is not likely to increase' - This doesn't explain why respiratory ailments won't decline. The argument is about whether the rate of ailments will decrease, not about treatment capacity. Even with the same treatment facilities, if emissions are cut by \(50\%\), we'd expect fewer people to develop respiratory problems in the first place. This choice misses the core issue of pollution reduction versus health outcomes.
'reducing emissions even further than planned would necessitate decreasing production at Woodco' - This talks about what would happen if Woodco cut emissions beyond the planned \(50\%\), but the argument already accepts that Woodco will cut emissions by \(50\%\). This choice doesn't explain why that \(50\%\) reduction won't improve health outcomes before year 4. It's irrelevant to the timing puzzle we need to solve.
'it is difficult to make accurate, long-term predictions about emissions' - This undermines the certainty of all the claims in the passage, including Woodco's plan to cut emissions. But the argument treats Woodco's emission reduction plan as definite ('Woodco plans to cut its emissions'). This choice contradicts the passage's premise rather than explaining why health won't improve despite emission cuts.
'not all respiratory ailments are caused by airborne pollutants' - While true, this doesn't explain the timing issue. The government study already linked the HIGH RATES of respiratory ailments to the plant's pollution. Even if some ailments have other causes, reducing the pollution-related ailments should still cause an overall decline in the rate. This doesn't explain why we'd see no improvement until year 4.
'three new plywood manufacturing plants are about to go into production in Groverston' - This perfectly explains the puzzle! While Woodco cuts its emissions by \(50\%\), three new plants will start operating and producing their own emissions. These new emissions could offset or even exceed Woodco's reduction, meaning total emissions in Groverston might not actually decrease. Only when the government regulations take effect in year 4 will ALL plants (including the new ones) be required to limit emissions, finally leading to an overall reduction and improved health outcomes.