Free Practice Question
CR · Critical Reasoning
655-705
Complete the Passage
At a recent conference regarding ecological concerns near the shores of California, the majority of attendees supported standardized regulations on the types of feed used for trout in aquaculture facilities along the coastline. These regulations were strongly endorsed regardless of whether any specific ecological harm could be directly attributed to a certain type of feed. What must be demonstrated, in order to avoid the risk of overly stringent regulations, is that _____ .
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowall fish feeds that will be regulated are proven to cause ecological harm along the California coast
Correct
B
the participants advocating for standardized regulations are mainly from a sector that competes with trout farmers
C
all agreed regulations that are standardized will be enforced without delay
D
all substances that are components of some of the regulated feeds are known to cause ecological harm
E
the ecological damage caused by harmful fish feeds in the past is not reversible in the near future, if at all
See the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Explanation
Preview
Official Explanation
Official
To mitigate the risk of excessively restrictive controls, it is essential to show that the fish feeds subject to regulation are indeed harmful. This means that the correct answer is that all fish…
Read the full explanation
Sign in for free to see the complete step-by-step solution to this question.
Comments
4
Sign in to join the discussion
A
ArinJan 14, 2025
thanks a lot
V
ViniciusApr 14, 2025
taking my GMAT next month, this helps!
D
DharunApr 30, 2025
still struggling with these types of problems
R
rohitApr 6, 2024
thankss
What this question tests
What it tests
Whether you can complete the last sentence of an argument in a way that is logically consistent with it.
Common trap
Choosing an option that sounds plausible but contradicts the argument or introduces new information.
Details
Difficulty
655-705
Type
CR