Bunuel wrote:
Environmental groups are aggressively protesting the proposed use of a new technique for mining oil from the fringes of underground aquifers. These groups complain that such mining will lead to instances of contaminated groundwater and to sinkholes and other disasters in areas near the proposed mining. But, as the mining companies are quick to retort, the countries already using this technique have not reported any groundwater contamination or environmental issues. Therefore, it is safe to proceed with the new technique.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion above?
(A) Some of the countries currently using the new technique have only been doing so for two years or less.
(B) Other widely-used techniques used to procure oil have led to even worse contamination issues than what environmentalists predict could happen with the new technique
(C) The countries currently using the technique are so dependent on oil revenue that they are unlikely to report any problems that might require them to stop.
(D) In the years that the new technique had been in use, several safeguards have been added to prevent the contamination of nearby water.
(E) All of the aquifers near which the proposed technique would be employed are used or will soon be used to provide drinking water for their surrounding communities.
I'd say C IMO.
Cause and
effect question.
The
cause is - the technique is safe.
The
effect is - no reported groundwater contamination or environmental issues.
Since we are trying to undermine the conclusion, we need an alternate effect to show other reasons why the technique might look safe.
A) Some of the countries currently using the new technique have only been doing so for two years or less.
Incorrect-This does not undermine the conclusion at all. We are not told why the countries stopped using the technique.(B) Other widely-used techniques used to procure oil have led to even worse contamination issues than what environmentalists predict could happen with the new technique.
Incorrect-This says that the environmentalists predict something, but this is not evidence, it does not provide an alternate cause to counter the original statement by the company. (C) The countries currently using the technique are so dependent on oil revenue that they are unlikely to report any problems that might require them to stop.
Correct-This is an alternate cause. The countries are not reporting the problems, so that's why the technique looks safe.(D) In the years that the new technique had been in use, several safeguards have been added to prevent the contamination of nearby water.
Incorrect-This strengthens the conclusion, not weaken. (E) All of the aquifers near which the proposed technique would be employed are used or will soon be used to provide drinking water for their surrounding communities.
Incorrect-This is out of the scope of the question and is not relevant.
19 Jan 2021, 10:14
81%
(01:33)
correct 
close
