Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 10:54 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 10:54
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
705-805 Level|   Weaken|         
avatar
rs47
avatar
Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Last visit: 27 Jun 2022
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
379
 [1]
Given Kudos: 21
Location: India
Schools: LBS MIF '19
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.3
Schools: LBS MIF '19
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V40
Posts: 75
Kudos: 379
 [1]
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 06 Aug 2021, 12:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Does option A in the question stem necessarily imply that garbage with lower quantities of cardboard and paper will not burn easily enough to destroy some dioxins it may contain?
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 950
Own Kudos:
208
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 950
Kudos: 208
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 09 Aug 2021, 11:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatt1476
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Show more


A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
This certainly helps in the fact that the regulation will have insignifacant effect since these dioxins are already being burned and destroyed
therefore let us hang on to it

B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
This definitely supports the passage , since there is a reduction in packaging which takes up a large amount of volume we can safely assume that there will be a decrement in the packaging

C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
per captia and average are two dangerous words which we have to tread carefully since these are adressing only certaiin section of the rural society we cannot be absolutely sure about the same

D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
This thoroughly out of context and doesn't have any iimpact on the passsage hence out

E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.
Similar reasoning as D
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,786
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,786
 [2]
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 28 Aug 2021, 09:18
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rs47
Does option A in the question stem necessarily imply that garbage with lower quantities of cardboard and paper will not burn easily enough to destroy some dioxins it may contain?
Show more
Let's take a look at answer choice (A):

Quote:
A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
Show more
Recall that the argument concludes "one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area." So how does (A) impact the argument?

Well, garbage that contains more paper and cardboard will burn hotter, making it more likely to destroy dioxins. Garbage that contains less paper and cardboard will burn less hot, making it less likely to destroy dioxins. Based on this observation, answer choice (A) weakens the argument -- it suggests that decreasing the amount of paper and cardboard in garbage will cause fewer dioxins to be destroyed, and thus will not decrease dioxin pollution.

Lastly, keep in mind the question asks which statement "most seriously weakens the argument." In other words, the correct answer doesn't need to conclusively prove the argument wrong -- it just needs to weaken it. Since (A) weakens the argument more seriously than any other choice, it's correct.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
maelstrom93
User avatar
Joined: 12 Nov 2021
Last visit: 13 Nov 2022
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 20
Posts: 11
Kudos: 1
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 31 Jan 2022, 09:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
To find an option which increase pollution of dioxins.

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.

Some dioxins (1-100)% destroyed.
Opposite = true, it also means that (0-99)% survived into the atmosphere.
So in most instance, disregarding only 100%, pollution increase.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 10 Mar 2022, 06:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
rs47
Does option A in the question stem necessarily imply that garbage with lower quantities of cardboard and paper will not burn easily enough to destroy some dioxins it may contain?
Let's take a look at answer choice (A):

Quote:
A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
Recall that the argument concludes "one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area." So how does (A) impact the argument?

Well, garbage that contains more paper and cardboard will burn hotter, making it more likely to destroy dioxins. Garbage that contains less paper and cardboard will burn less hot, making it less likely to destroy dioxins. Based on this observation, answer choice (A) weakens the argument -- it suggests that decreasing the amount of paper and cardboard in garbage will cause fewer dioxins to be destroyed, and thus will not decrease dioxin pollution.

Lastly, keep in mind the question asks which statement "most seriously weakens the argument." In other words, the correct answer doesn't need to conclusively prove the argument wrong -- it just needs to weaken it. Since (A) weakens the argument more seriously than any other choice, it's correct.

I hope that helps!
Show more

Hello,

I am a bit confused on this one, GMATNinja, KarishmaB. I understand why (B)-(E) is incorrect, but I disagree with the leap one has to take to make (A) work:

How can we infer from:

Large quantities of paper burning hot enough to destroy some portion of the dioxins contained in the paper

To:

Smaller quantities burn less hot (?) and therefore, are less likely to destroy dioxins (?)

How can we know that smaller paper quantities induce less heat, and also, that less heat destroys less dioxin? If we don't assume these things, A loses its ability to weaken the argument.

Thanks
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,997
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,997
 [1]
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 10 Mar 2022, 07:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
GMATNinja
rs47
Does option A in the question stem necessarily imply that garbage with lower quantities of cardboard and paper will not burn easily enough to destroy some dioxins it may contain?
Let's take a look at answer choice (A):

Quote:
A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
Recall that the argument concludes "one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area." So how does (A) impact the argument?

Well, garbage that contains more paper and cardboard will burn hotter, making it more likely to destroy dioxins. Garbage that contains less paper and cardboard will burn less hot, making it less likely to destroy dioxins. Based on this observation, answer choice (A) weakens the argument -- it suggests that decreasing the amount of paper and cardboard in garbage will cause fewer dioxins to be destroyed, and thus will not decrease dioxin pollution.

Lastly, keep in mind the question asks which statement "most seriously weakens the argument." In other words, the correct answer doesn't need to conclusively prove the argument wrong -- it just needs to weaken it. Since (A) weakens the argument more seriously than any other choice, it's correct.

I hope that helps!

Hello,

I am a bit confused on this one, GMATNinja, KarishmaB. I understand why (B)-(E) is incorrect, but I disagree with the leap one has to take to make (A) work:

How can we infer from:

Large quantities of paper burning hot enough to destroy some portion of the dioxins contained in the paper

To:

Smaller quantities burn less hot (?) and therefore, are less likely to destroy dioxins (?)

How can we know that smaller paper quantities induce less heat, and also, that less heat destroys less dioxin? If we don't assume these things, A loses its ability to weaken the argument.

Thanks
Show more

hadimadi

First, note that this is a GMAT Advance Official question. Also, it is a 700 level. What this tells us is that we will need to think a bit in it. Also, that the logic is correct and if we do not agree with it then we are missing something - perhaps in our understanding of what GMAT expects of us.
With that mindset, think what is given and what is asked.

We need to weaken that "new regulations will surely lead to a reduction in dioxin pollution"
So we need to cast doubt on this conclusion. Mind you, we don't have to prove that new regulations will not lead to reduction. We only have to cast doubt on it i.e. make the author re-consider his stand.


(A) Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.

Large quantities of paper makes burning garbage very hot which destroys dioxins. Then we can say that small quantities may not make the garbage hot enough to destroy dioxins. Hence, would the amount of dioxins reduce? We can't really say. So then this casts doubt on our conclusion and is the answer.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 10 Mar 2022, 08:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun, KarishmaB

Hi,

thanks for your reply.

I understand that we don't have to disprove the argument, but rather throw something in the room that questions the argument. But whatever it is that we throw in the room, it has to be logically inferable from one of the answer choices, or directly be the answer choice itself, correct?

Otherwise, I can just think of something, or make some example up, that casts doubt on the argument, without this example being in the answer choices.

Now from (A), in no way, I can infer that small quantities burn less hot and destroy less dioxin. However, it COULD generally be. So that makes (A) the correct answer choice? In other words:
Because the closest guess to cast a doubt to answer choice (A) is that less paper means less heat and that means less dioxin destroyed, it is the correct answer? Even though I can't even logically infer that answer from (A)?

That looks very strange to me and I hope that I am wrong somewhere.

Thanks
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 13 Mar 2022, 21:26
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
Now from (A), in no way, I can infer that small quantities burn less hot and destroy less dioxin. However, it COULD generally be. So that makes (A) the correct answer choice? In other words:
Because the closest guess to cast a doubt to answer choice (A) is that less paper means less heat and that means less dioxin destroyed, it is the correct answer? Even though I can't even logically infer that answer from (A)?
Show more
Hi hadimadi,

Personally, I think it's reasonable to expect that smaller quantities wouldn't burn as hot as larger quantities, but I get your point. Generally speaking, we can usually find some fault(s) in the correct option (not only in CR, even in SC!), but the verbal section is not about one option (alone). It's about choosing between two or more options. Now, is it possible that (as you said) some dioxin could be destroyed even with small quantities of paper and cardboard? Yes. But is that information given to us? No.

Now, we need take a call here. We can go with what the GMAT has told us is true ("which of the following, if true"), that burning large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily destroy some portion of the dioxins in garbage. The other line of thought we could pursue, that burning small quantities can also easily destroy some portion of the dioxins in garbage, is, at best, a "maybe". So option A gives us some reason to think that, because "large quantities" will become less likely, "some portion of the dioxins... to be destroyed" also becomes less likely.

At this point, if you're thinking that option A could be correct, but it contains some possible issues, you're doing exactly what the verbal section needs test takers to do. The next step is to move on to the other options to check whether we can find another option that is at least as good. If we can't, we should mark A, no matter how weak we consider it to be.

hadimadi
Otherwise, I can just think of something, or make some example up, that casts doubt on the argument, without this example being in the answer choices.
Show more
If you're thinking about trying to come up with possible answers before looking at the options, that's okay. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but (personally) I don't spend any time doing that. I move directly to the five options.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,997
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,997
 [2]
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 14 Mar 2022, 02:10
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hadimadi
AjiteshArun, KarishmaB

Hi,

thanks for your reply.

I understand that we don't have to disprove the argument, but rather throw something in the room that questions the argument. But whatever it is that we throw in the room, it has to be logically inferable from one of the answer choices, or directly be the answer choice itself, correct?

Otherwise, I can just think of something, or make some example up, that casts doubt on the argument, without this example being in the answer choices.

Now from (A), in no way, I can infer that small quantities burn less hot and destroy less dioxin. However, it COULD generally be. So that makes (A) the correct answer choice? In other words:
Because the closest guess to cast a doubt to answer choice (A) is that less paper means less heat and that means less dioxin destroyed, it is the correct answer? Even though I can't even logically infer that answer from (A)?

That looks very strange to me and I hope that I am wrong somewhere.

Thanks
Show more

I think Ajitesh has already explained the important point. I would like to add one thing here - This is CR, not pure deductive logic. It has some leeway and is closer to real life situations. Hence, if you tell me "Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough," I am likely to think that garbage with small quantities of paper and cardboard may not burn hot enough and I will certainly think that it will not burn hot enough "easily". Otherwise, there is no point to the statement you told me.

You will need to take a call based on context, question and other options on what you can reasonably infer and what you cannot.
User avatar
hadimadi
User avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
31
 [1]
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 114
Kudos: 31
 [1]
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 14 Mar 2022, 02:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB, AjiteshArun

Hi to both,

thanks for your explanations, they helped me a lot, as always.
User avatar
MBAcandidate1005
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Last visit: 03 May 2023
Posts: 22
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 14
GRE 1: Q166 V153
GRE 1: Q166 V153
Posts: 22
Kudos: 5
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 01 Nov 2022, 00:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
gmatt1476
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.


CR53140.01

In a certain area, people burn their garbage which releases dioxins.
New regulations require reduction in paper and cardboard packaging in this area.
This packaging contains dioxins.

Conclusion: Dioxin pollution in the area will reduce.

We need to weaken the argument. So we need to find why dioxin pollution may not reduce or may even increase. We need an option that compares dioxin levels right now vs dioxin levels after implementation of regulations (less paper and cardboard)


A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.

This says that garbage containing lot of paper and cardboard burns away some dioxins. So possibly, garbage containing less paper and cardboard will not burn hot enough and hence all dioxins will get released in the air. It does compare current situation of dioxin levels with possible levels after regulation. We don't know whether the lower amount of paper will make up for releasing all dioxins but it certainly makes us doubt our conclusion. It questions our conclusion.

B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.

Weight vs volume is irrelevant.

C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.

Per capita sales in rural vs urban is irrelevant.

D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.

Why the regulations came into being is irrelevant. We need to find the dioxins impact.

E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.

Impact of dioxins in irrelevant. We are only talking about amount of dioxin pollution.


Answer (A)
Show more

I don't understand why A is correct. If in pre-regulation time the amount of garbage with dioxin inducing items was 100 and 70 of it released dioxins (30 was removed due to the high temperature) and after regulation the amount is now 80 but all 80 release dioxins. Then how has dioxin pollution reduced or remain the same. It can also increase. That "some portion" that is burnt off could be very very low and not significant enough to overcome the reduction in total amount of garbage. Both cases are possible where it can reduce or increase or even remain the same in terms of pollution. So do not understand how it can be chosen as an answer....
User avatar
steckcha
User avatar
Joined: 20 May 2017
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 63
Posts: 12
Kudos: 4
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 28 Jul 2023, 07:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatt1476
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?


A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.

B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.

C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.

D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.

E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.


CR53140.01
Show more

What's the heart of this question?

Dioxins must be reduced to achieve a reduction in dioxin pollution.
Cardboard and paper contain dioxin so we must reduce cardboard and paper.

Our goal is to say that don't reduce cardboard and paper because there is a good reason behind it.

A is the answer because it says that when the garbage contains large quantities of cardboard and paper, it can effortlessly burn at such a temperature that the dioxins, the cause of dioxin pollution, get destroyed.
In simple words, let's not reduce cardboard and paper because they help to eliminate dioxins, the cause of the pollution, without any stress.

B is eliminated because what percentage of the garbage's weight and volume are the packaging materials is insignificant.
Cardboard and paper contain dioxin but reducing them won't reduce the pollution is significant.

C is out of the window because Per-capita sales (rural versus urban) is out of scope.
In addition, the question doesn't give us any facts or figures on sales. Impotent point.

Trash D because the harvesting of timber, the regrowth of timber, and the motivation behind the regulation are not at all important. What's important is that by reducing paper and cardboard, the pollution cannot be reduced.

E is eliminated because serious health problems are out of the scope of this argument.
Dioxin pollution stems from dioxins contained in paper and cardboard is the scope of this argument.


Thus, A, if true, most seriously weakens the argument.

I hope I'm crystal-clear 🙏

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
MrMBB
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2023
Last visit: 26 May 2024
Posts: 9
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 92
GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q87 V83 DI85
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q87 V83 DI85
Posts: 9
Kudos: 1
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 19 Dec 2023, 00:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Confused between A & B. It is not clear in A, it it weakens, if less paper is there it will contain less dioxin as it is given in arg they contain dioxin. So we don't know if it burn sufficient to reduce that. But in B if proportion is less then dioxin will be less. So reducing paper will not reduce dioxin.
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,632
Own Kudos:
6,122
 [1]
Given Kudos: 173
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,632
Kudos: 6,122
 [1]
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 19 Dec 2023, 06:49
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MrMBB
Confused between A & B. It is not clear in A, it it weakens, if less paper is there it will contain less dioxin as it is given in arg they contain dioxin. So we don't know if it burn sufficient to reduce that.
Show more
Here's the thing.

To weaken an argument, we don't need to prove the conclusion incorrect. We need only to cast doubt on the conclusion.

So, (A) works because it does serve to cast doubt on the conclusion. After all, if paper and cardboard in the garbage causes it to burn at a temperature such that dioxin is destroyed, then whether reducing the amount of paper and cardboard in the garbage will result in a reduction in the amount of dioxin pollution is not clear. The amount of dioxin pollution might increase. We don't know for sure, but given what (A) says, it could.

Quote:
But in B if proportion is less then dioxin will be less. So reducing paper will not reduce dioxin.
Show more
The issue with (B) is that, even if the proportion of paper and cardboard in garbage isn't large, reducing the amount of paper and cardboard will still result in a reduction in the amount of dioxin present in the garbage.

For example, if the proportion of garbage represented by paper and cardboard is only 10 percent, if we reduce the amount of paper and cardboard, we'll still have a reduction in dioxin. In that case, the author's conclusion could be correct, even if the reduction in dioxin pollution is not very large.

Also, even if paper and cardboard represent only 10 percent of garbage, if there's a lot of garbage, there could be a lot of paper and cardboard. So, there could still be room for a large reduction in paper and cardboard burned and thus a large reduction in dioxin pollution.

In general, we have to be careful about choices like choice (B) that have the vibe of weakening the argument but don't really change the scenario in a relevant way. In this case, this choice gives us more information about the proportion of paper and cardboard in garbage without changing the fact that there is paper and cardboard in garbage or the fact that it's possible to reduce the amount of paper and cardboard discarded and burned.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,829
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,829
Kudos: 986
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage 20 Dec 2024, 01:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts