Researchers in City X recently discovered low levels of several pharmaceutical drugs in public drinking water supplies. However, the researchers argued that the drugs in the water were not a significant public health hazard. They pointed out that the drug levels were so low that they could only be detected with the most recent technology, which suggested that the drugs may have already been present in the drinking water for decades, even though they have never had any discernible health effects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers’ reasoning?


If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects.

There is no need to remove low levels of pharmaceutical drugs from public drinking water unless they present a significant public health hazard.

Even if a substance in drinking water is a public health hazard, scientists may not have discerned which adverse health effects, if any, it has caused.

Researchers using older, less sensitive technology detected the same drugs several decades ago in the public drinking water of a neighboring town but could find no discernible health effects.

Samples of City X’s drinking water taken decades ago were tested with today’s most recent technology, and none of the pharmaceutical drugs were found.

加入错题本 分享
纠错
考题讲解
还没有题目讲解（毕出老师会陆续发布对官方考题的解读，请保持关注）。
求讲解

登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论

查看全部13条讨论
GMATAdvanced-CR