Thanks a lot marty Sir for validating...
That basically makes sense. It might be a bit better if you captured more specifically the conclusion, which is not simply that the repairs will be helpful but that repairing the pipes will increase supply without causing damage.
MartyMurray wrote:
sayan640 wrote:
MartyMurray KarishmaB ,Request you to check my reasoning and correct me if I am wrong.
The conclusion of the argument:- The repair will be helpful in increasing the water supply.
Option E says that there is no harm being made by the leakage as the ground water is being replenished .
Hence there is no significant benefit that is possible by repairing .
They can go for the repairing but it's not gonna help much as the water leaked is already going back to the ground water level.
E is the answer as it will lead to the conclusion i.e "repairing will not be helpful ".
The conclusion of the argument:- The repair will be helpful in increasing the water supply.
Option E says that there is no harm being made by the leakage as the ground water is being replenished .
Hence there is no significant benefit that is possible by repairing .
They can go for the repairing but it's not gonna help much as the water leaked is already going back to the ground water level.
E is the answer as it will lead to the conclusion i.e "repairing will not be helpful ".
That basically makes sense. It might be a bit better if you captured more specifically the conclusion, which is not simply that the repairs will be helpful but that repairing the pipes will increase supply without causing damage.
