Last choice is The spokesperson is speaking sincerely.
The OA is A
Please could you also provide your explainations. Thanks.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Spokesperson
This topic has expert replies
-
vivek.kapoor83
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:56 am
- Thanked: 13 times
please could you share your explanations as well? thanks.
The last choice reads " the spokesperson is speaking sincereley"
i couldnt get the entire question within the the window provided, hence the last 2 words couldnt fit in.
The last choice reads " the spokesperson is speaking sincereley"
i couldnt get the entire question within the the window provided, hence the last 2 words couldnt fit in.
Melbourne, Australia.
-
adilka
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:28 am
- Location: Canada
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:700
I disagree, I think the right choice is A
E has nothing to do with the health problem. All that E is going to ensure is that "there is no evidence of health problems" as the spokesperson assumes. Lack of evidence, however, does NOT mean that there are no health issues. There are plenty of things around us that were true, but people didnt have hard n fast evidence to prove it (think back to 15th century)
B - Standards for safety also have nothing to do with reality. If there's no evidence (as the spokesperson says) gov't may not have the ability to put in place standards prohibiting the chemical just based on the gut feeling, so it'll could issue a "safe" guidance for the lack of conclusive evidence. Again, there are a number of examples where safety standards changed overtime (FAA safety rules, Smoking in public places, etc.)
A - negates any reasonable possibility that there are health risks tied to this chemical. 20 years are reasonably sufficient for the effects to surface.
E has nothing to do with the health problem. All that E is going to ensure is that "there is no evidence of health problems" as the spokesperson assumes. Lack of evidence, however, does NOT mean that there are no health issues. There are plenty of things around us that were true, but people didnt have hard n fast evidence to prove it (think back to 15th century)
B - Standards for safety also have nothing to do with reality. If there's no evidence (as the spokesperson says) gov't may not have the ability to put in place standards prohibiting the chemical just based on the gut feeling, so it'll could issue a "safe" guidance for the lack of conclusive evidence. Again, there are a number of examples where safety standards changed overtime (FAA safety rules, Smoking in public places, etc.)
A - negates any reasonable possibility that there are health risks tied to this chemical. 20 years are reasonably sufficient for the effects to surface.
I'd choose A
A means the harmful effect would be discovered in 20 years (Not right now), which strengthens the argument that it has no current evidence of harmful effect.
A is like to say" Hey, buddy, don't worry about the harmful effect, it 's not a evidence of this concern (yeah, it's gonna show up in 20 years). As no evidence shown the harmful effect, please believe it is safe to follow the recommend way "
A means the harmful effect would be discovered in 20 years (Not right now), which strengthens the argument that it has no current evidence of harmful effect.
A is like to say" Hey, buddy, don't worry about the harmful effect, it 's not a evidence of this concern (yeah, it's gonna show up in 20 years). As no evidence shown the harmful effect, please believe it is safe to follow the recommend way "
kartyc wrote:Last choice is The spokesperson is speaking sincerely.
The OA is A
Please could you also provide your explainations. Thanks.
-
ashley.com
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:32 am
