The federal government has fined the municipality of Centreville for not enforcing federal antipollution laws, which require local industries to...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

The federal government has fined the municipality of Centreville for not enforcing federal antipollution laws, which require local industries to buy expensive new pollution-control equipment. Centreville had not enforced these laws because the municipality feared that antagonizing local industries would cause them to relocate to other municipalities.

Which of the following, if true, indicates most strongly that Centreville had not been unreasonable in deciding not to enforce the antipollution laws?

Municipal sewage-treatment plants in general are ill equipped to handle industrial wastes, which contain both chemical and metal pollutants.

The antipollution laws require all industries to meet the same standards, regardless of the fact that compliance is far more difficult for some industries than for others.

The federal government consistently fines only a small fraction of the municipalities that have failed to enforce federal antipollution laws.

Several nearby municipalities have nonpolluting industries within their municipal boundaries.

For some polluting industries currently located in Centreville, the cost of relocating to another municipality would be prohibitively high because of new construction that would be required.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The federal government has fined the municipality of Centreville for not enforcing federal antipollution laws, which require local industries to buy expensive new pollution-control equipment.	What it says: The feds penalized Centreville for not making local companies follow pollution rules that cost a lot of money What it does: Sets up the conflict - introduces the punishment and reveals what was at stake financially What it is: Factual background establishing the situation
Centreville had not enforced these laws because the municipality feared that antagonizing local industries would cause them to relocate to other municipalities.	What it says: Centreville didn't enforce the rules because they worried companies would leave town if pushed too hard What it does: Explains Centreville's reasoning and connects their fear of economic loss to their decision not to enforce What it is: Centreville's justification for their actions

Argument Flow:

We start with a conflict situation where Centreville got punished by the federal government. Then we learn why Centreville made their choice - they had a legitimate economic concern about losing businesses to other towns.

Main Conclusion:

There isn't actually a main conclusion in this passage - it's setting up background information for us to evaluate whether Centreville's decision was reasonable.

Logical Structure:

This is a setup passage rather than a complete argument. It presents the facts (federal fine) and Centreville's reasoning (fear of business relocation) so we can judge if their decision made sense. The logical connection is: Centreville feared economic consequences, so they chose not to enforce the laws, which led to federal punishment.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that makes Centreville's decision to not enforce the antipollution laws seem more reasonable and justified

Precision of Claims

The key claim is about the reasonableness of Centreville's decision - specifically that their fear of industries relocating was a legitimate concern that justified not enforcing the laws

Strategy

We need to find evidence that supports Centreville's core worry: that enforcing the antipollution laws would actually cause local industries to leave. This means looking for information that shows their fear was well-founded, that the economic consequences would be real and significant, or that other similar situations have validated this concern

Answer Choices Explained

Municipal sewage-treatment plants in general are ill equipped to handle industrial wastes, which contain both chemical and metal pollutants.

This talks about municipal sewage-treatment plants being ill-equipped to handle industrial wastes. However, this doesn't address Centreville's specific concern about industries relocating if forced to comply with antipollution laws. The passage is about enforcement of laws requiring industries to buy pollution-control equipment, not about sewage treatment capacity. This choice doesn't strengthen the reasonableness of Centreville's decision.

The antipollution laws require all industries to meet the same standards, regardless of the fact that compliance is far more difficult for some industries than for others.

This points out that the antipollution laws require all industries to meet the same standards regardless of compliance difficulty. While this might suggest the laws are somewhat unfair, it doesn't directly support Centreville's specific fear that enforcing these laws would cause local industries to relocate. It doesn't validate their core economic concern.

The federal government consistently fines only a small fraction of the municipalities that have failed to enforce federal antipollution laws.

This reveals that the federal government consistently fines only a small fraction of municipalities that fail to enforce federal antipollution laws. This strongly indicates that Centreville's decision was reasonable because it shows many other municipalities made the same choice, suggesting this is a common, rational response to the same economic dilemma. If most non-enforcing municipalities don't even get fined, it validates that Centreville's concerns about the enforcement trade-off are widely shared and reasonable.

Several nearby municipalities have nonpolluting industries within their municipal boundaries.

This tells us that several nearby municipalities have nonpolluting industries. This doesn't help justify Centreville's decision because it doesn't address what would happen to Centreville's polluting industries if forced to comply. In fact, it might suggest that polluting industries could relocate to these nearby areas, which would actually support enforcing the laws rather than making non-enforcement seem reasonable.

For some polluting industries currently located in Centreville, the cost of relocating to another municipality would be prohibitively high because of new construction that would be required.

This states that for some polluting industries in Centreville, relocation costs would be prohibitively high due to required new construction. This actually weakens Centreville's reasoning rather than strengthening it, because if industries can't afford to relocate, then Centreville's fear of losing them through enforcement was unfounded. This makes their decision seem less reasonable, not more reasonable.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...