Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 26 Oct 2016, 15:11

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 172 [0], given: 6

It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 07:05
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

79% (02:21) correct 21% (02:16) wrong based on 131 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public.
Intern
Status: Applying
Joined: 30 Jul 2009
Posts: 38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 07:43
[EDIT - REMOVED BY USER]

Last edited by nplaneta on 17 Jun 2012, 19:01, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 156
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 08:17
I would disagree. IMO C.

The argument says that there has to be some safety implication for the responsible ones to dump nuclear wastes only in the more sparsely populated regions. So in order to weaken this argument, we need to find an alternative explanation as to why they are dumping nuclear wastes in those sparsely populated areas despite safety not being an issue.

Option C says that there there are other reasons -

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.
Manager
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 218
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 09:01
I initially thought B, but after erading whathehell's explanation I am leaning towards C.
I am curious to knowwhat the OA is?
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 849
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 297 [0], given: 106

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 09:26
C for me.

When I read the passage. I started looking for the economic reason(cost factors => easily available cheap land. C has it. Not sure about the bureaucratic problems.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Manager
Joined: 01 Jul 2009
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.8
WE: General Management (Retail)
Followers: 25

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 09:47
I think its E
_________________

i love kudos consider giving them if you like my post!!

http://gmatclub.com/forum/critical-reasoning-for-beginners-82111.html
QUANT NOTES FOR PS & DS: notes to help you do better in Quant. Click Below
http://gmatclub.com/forum/quant-notes-for-ps-ds-82447.html
GMAT Timing Planner: This little tool could help you plan timing strategy. Click Below
http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-cat-timing-planner-82513.html

Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 44
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 10:50
C for me too
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 897
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 602 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 09:04
C for me too.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 299
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 10:36
would go with C as it suggests that the reason for not doing it in the densed areas is because of economic and bureucratic reasons as opposed to safty...
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 230
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 11:16
One more C.
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 15:32
I go with C.

Author's argument is that Policy makers do not locate dump sites in densely populated regions is because there is AT LEAST some degree of danger associated (which they do not talk about - hence the misgiving).

C clearly indicates that Policy makers locate dump site in sparsely populated regions because of bureaucratic and economic reasons. This negates the AT LEAST argument.
Manager
Status: Applying
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 155
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 21:22
COnfused

could be C or D
Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 441
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 41

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2009, 07:55
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small. Irrelevant

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area. Similar to C but C has a better alternate explanation.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas. Looks right. bureaucrats are linked to the policy makers.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population. Strengthens

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public. Assuming too much
_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 318
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2009, 23:20

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 608
Location: Kolkata,India
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 724 [0], given: 100

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2009, 03:13
Its C all the way.....
_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/countdown-beginshas-ended-85483-40.html#p649902

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 126
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2009, 07:44
one more C
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 357
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 32

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 23:06
I go with C.

OA pls.
Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 53
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 00:11
1
KUDOS
one more C
Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 03:03
I go with C - it is probably due to evidence of low risk to the safety of indivudals in rural areas, that pose less economic and bureaucatic constrains.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2012, 05:41
acer2knight wrote:

Initially I also thought it should be E. Now I realize my mistake and understand it should be C.

In the argument, it is very clearly stated that "...If this claim could be made with certainty...". This means, the author is accepting the conclusion would be true if and only if the claim can be made with certainty. So, there is no point in weakening the argument on this basis.

E is really a trap and the correct answer is C.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Re: nuclear waste   [#permalink] 14 Mar 2012, 05:41

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 29 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
33 Editorial: The government claims that the country's nuclear 17 07 Jul 2012, 17:57
1 It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste 6 23 Feb 2010, 12:17
10 It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste 14 20 Sep 2009, 06:59
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste 8 25 Jun 2008, 11:56
5 Waste management companies, which collect waste for disposal 20 03 Dec 2006, 09:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by