Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policymakers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?
A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.
B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.
C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.
D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.
E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.
Official ExplanationType: Weaken
Boil It Down: Transporting nuke waste safe in Yardow -> Should be allowed in general
Missing Information: Yardow is a relevant example
Goal:
We need to find an option that shows there is something than usual about Yardow such that it would be rendered an irrelevant example.Ⓐ Nobody’s talking about transporting nuclear waste by train so a discussion about the logistics involved in train transport of nuclear waste is entirely irrelevant. This is a classic out of focus option. It’s just not clear at all how this information relates in any way to the claim that trucks should be allowed to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. For all we know, transporting this waste by train is even more dangerous than it is by truck.
Ⓑ We have no way to know whether transferring reporting duties would’ve affected the results. It would be speculative at best to presume that’s the case. For all we know, the standards and execution quality remained exactly the same despite the transfer of reporting duties to a different regulatory agency.
Ⓒ This is the statistical runner-up option. At first glance option C appears to show that something is unusual about Yardow; however, the license requirement could be standard across the entire nation. There’s no way to know that there’s anything that's usual about this licensing requirement. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Therefore it’s not clear whether C would point out a relative difference in Yardow Prefecture’s requirements, and this option does not clearly weaken. Compare that to option D, which points to an array of factors that make Yardow special, and therefore likely an unfair example to use in the case to allow truck borne nuclear waste.
Ⓓ Yes! This is the correct option because it reveals that something is definitely specific about Yardow’s restrictions. The roads in the Yardow example are ONLY travelled on by vehicles in excess of 80,000 pounds, and by specially licensed drivers. Taking every other vehicle off the road and having these trucks operated by specially licensed drivers on these exclusive roads dramatically reduces the risk of an incident happening. If we were to refer to the Yardow case to justify truck driven nuclear power plant waste in general, then we’d be relying on an unrealistic, unrepresentative set of circumstances, thus dramatically weakening the argument to allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary.Ⓔ This option also gets some interest; however, there’s no way to assume that for nuclear waste transport this information is even relevant. The option just states what is typically the case. With nuclear waste, how would we know that this information is even relevant to us? Would two trucks or just one truck be used? We have no idea. Furthermore, it’s unclear how the use of one truck or two trucks would even impact the safety record. In other words there’s just no way to know the relevance of option E.
Bigger GMAT Picture: If you find yourself vacillating between two options,
scour the differences with an emphasis on WHAT's WRONG. Otherwise, it can be all too tempting to rationalize an incorrect option that's well-disguised.
_________________
EMPOWERgmat
Total GMAT Content & Tactical Training | 120 Point Guarantee | All 6 Official GMAT Tests
empowergmat.com