Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake's bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless.
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. |
|
| Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake waters have become cleaner. |
|
| Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake's bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. |
|
| However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. |
|
| Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by establishing Lake Konfa's pollution history and recent recovery. It then presents current fears about a new oil pipeline threatening this recovery. Finally, it argues these fears are unfounded because leak-prevention technology is being installed.
Main Conclusion:
The fears about the oil pipeline causing pollution and fish population decline are groundless, as long as the leak-prevention technology works effectively.
Logical Structure:
The author relies on the assumption that leak-prevention technology is the only factor needed to prevent pipeline-related pollution. The logic assumes: if technology prevents leaks → no pollution → no fish population decline → fears are groundless.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe is true for their conclusion to work. The author concludes that fears about the pipeline causing pollution are groundless, provided the leak-prevention technology is effective.
Precision of Claims
The argument involves quality claims about pollution levels, technology effectiveness, and the relationship between leaks and fish population health. The conclusion is conditional on the technology being effective.
Strategy
To find assumptions, we need to identify ways the conclusion could fail even if all stated facts remain true. We'll look for gaps between the premises and conclusion - what must be true about the leak-prevention technology, pollution sources, or fish population for the author's reasoning to hold?
This isn't required for the argument to work. The author's conclusion specifically addresses fears about the pipeline project, not other potential pollution sources. The argument could still be valid (that pipeline fears are groundless) even if other industrial development might cause pollution later. The scope of the conclusion is limited to pipeline-related concerns.
This reverses the author's conditional statement. The author already acknowledges uncertainty by saying 'provided this technology is effective.' The argument doesn't assume the technology will definitely work - it's saying IF it works, then fears are groundless. This choice goes beyond what the argument requires.
This is exactly what we need. Even if the leak-prevention technology is 100% effective, the construction process itself could disturb old pollutants buried in the lake bed from the early 20th century pollution. If toxic remnants get stirred up during construction, fish populations could decline regardless of whether any oil leaks occur. For the conclusion to hold, we must assume this won't happen.
This is too broad and unnecessary. The argument focuses specifically on whether fears about fish population decline are groundless. The author doesn't need to assume anything about other potential harms - the conclusion is narrowly about fish populations, not all possible environmental damage.
This is irrelevant to the argument's logic. Whether the current fish are the same species or different species that moved in later doesn't affect whether pipeline construction will harm whatever fish are there now. The argument works regardless of fish species composition.