It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 04:01

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

6 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 876 [6], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2015, 08:35
6
This post received
KUDOS
15
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

74% (01:36) correct 26% (02:11) wrong based on 1422 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

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

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 876 [6], given: 30

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 561

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 80

Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2015, 11:51
Isn't the correct option extremely bright?
Rest 4 are so irrelevant to the topic at hand.
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 80

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 561

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 80

Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2015, 11:53
Incidents occured at a site where the operators were not well trained. So may be it's not the incinerators but the lack of training that caused the leaks.
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Kudos [?]: 710 [0], given: 80

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 194

Kudos [?]: 400 [1], given: 886

Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jul 2015, 06:37
1
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Premise - 40 incidents of Incineration were reported involving release of dangerous chemical agents at existing incinerators.
New designs of proposed new incinerators include no additional measure to prevent such releases.
Conclusion - Leaks will become more prevalent if use of incineration increases at these new incinerators.


The argument here assumes that only the mechanism at incinerators is at fault for release of chemical waste and that no other factor could be responsible for leaks.
It is possible that some other factor and not the mechanism at the incinerators is at fault for the release of chemical waste.

Any statement that will provide evidence that there are other factors involved is going to weaken the argument.

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
-> This statement gives us an alternate cause of leaks , hence if staff at the new incinerators are much more well trained we could have fewer incidences of chemical leaks.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
-> We are not concerned with other means. The argument only tasks about incinerators and hence this choice is irrelevant.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
-> We are not concerned with capacity. Hence this choice is irrelevant.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
-> Strengthens the argument and opposite to what we are looking at.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
-> This choice is actually irrelevant to the argument. We already know that leaks occurred in incinerators and this choice just states that in another way.
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Kudos [?]: 400 [1], given: 886

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 3.3
Reviews Badge
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2016, 08:25
I stuck between A and B. Can someone elaborate more on the option B?
We are concerned about leaks in the conclusion, which is not neccessarily only leaks from incinerators (I mean we are not told that only leaks from incineration are considered). What if, other ways of disposing chemical, which according to option B are not safer than incineration, can lead to the increase in the leaks. So, with this reasoning, increase in the incineration is not the only way for increase in the leaks.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1593

Kudos [?]: 1001 [0], given: 80

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2016, 21:03
rmohammadi wrote:
I stuck between A and B. Can someone elaborate more on the option B?
We are concerned about leaks in the conclusion, which is not neccessarily only leaks from incinerators (I mean we are not told that only leaks from incineration are considered). What if, other ways of disposing chemical, which according to option B are not safer than incineration, can lead to the increase in the leaks. So, with this reasoning, increase in the incineration is not the only way for increase in the leaks.


Hi rmohammadi ,
The argument only considers the leaks that will become more prevalent because of increase in incineration . Read the highlighted conclusion .
Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper
procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
Choice A presents an alternate cause for the leaks

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been
proven safer than incineration.
Choice B is Out of scope .
Also other means of disposing of chemical waste may be safer than incineration even if no one has proven so . Even if
those methods are not safer than incineration , they may involve fewer leaks .
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Kudos [?]: 1001 [0], given: 80

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 3.3
Reviews Badge
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2016, 06:54
Skywalker18 wrote:
rmohammadi wrote:
I stuck between A and B. Can someone elaborate more on the option B?
We are concerned about leaks in the conclusion, which is not neccessarily only leaks from incinerators (I mean we are not told that only leaks from incineration are considered). What if, other ways of disposing chemical, which according to option B are not safer than incineration, can lead to the increase in the leaks. So, with this reasoning, increase in the incineration is not the only way for increase in the leaks.


Hi rmohammadi ,
The argument only considers the leaks that will become more prevalent because of increase in incineration . Read the highlighted conclusion .
Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper
procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
Choice A presents an alternate cause for the leaks

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been
proven safer than incineration.
Choice B is Out of scope .
Also other means of disposing of chemical waste may be safer than incineration even if no one has proven so . Even if
those methods are not safer than incineration , they may involve fewer leaks .



Thanks. But I think that conclusion is not clear somehow. What if we consider the total chemical leaks? In this case, even if other methods have fewer leaks, they contribute to the increase in total leaks.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3097

Kudos [?]: 1114 [0], given: 327

Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2016, 08:22
WillGetIt wrote:
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

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

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.


Supporters : Increased incineration is safe
Opponents : Incidence of 40 incidents involved unexpected release of dangerous chemicals
Conclusion : Proposed new incinerators (Designed in similar manner ) will lead to leaks more prevalent if use of incineration increases.


So we can draw it as

Faulty Design ------> unexpected release of dangerous chemicals

Our task is to weaken the above reasoning , so lets check the options -



(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

What if we do not employ unskilled staff ( Who are responsible for the leaks ) ?

Here we are ascribing the leakage to the unskilled staff - Attacks the premises on which the argument rests

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

Out of scope we are not comparing chemical waste disposal methods.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

Out of scope, we are not concerned with the capacity of existing incinerators and their capability of disposing increased incineration

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

Out of scope , compares the frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agent

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.

Out of scope, we must restrict our discussion only to the release of chemical , not the extend to which they are located...

Hence IMHO (A) :-D 8-)
_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Kudos [?]: 1114 [0], given: 327

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 903

Kudos [?]: 433 [0], given: 69

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2016, 13:08
WillGetIt wrote:
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

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

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper
procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been
proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste
without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about
the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the
property on which the incinerators were located.


Conclusion is that since no design changes are done in the incinerators, leaks of dangerous gases are likely to increase with increase usage of incinerators.

We can weaken the conclusion by two means:-
1) Showing that leaks will reduce even with existing designs.
2) Example given to support the conclusion is flawed


(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper
procedures for incinerating chemical waste. We got it! It makes us believe that leaks might be because of limited training to staff and not because of incinerator.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been
proven safer than incineration. We are not concerned about other means.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste
without any need for new incinerators. We are not talking about requirement of new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about
the same as the frequency at older incinerators. IMO it strengthens and not weakens the argument.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the
property on which the incinerators were located. We are concerned about the leaks of dangerous gases and not about weather leaks extended outside or inside the property.
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Kudos [?]: 433 [0], given: 69

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 647

Kudos [?]: 376 [1], given: 36

GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2016, 04:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
The CORRECT ANSWER is A. Another highly attractive WRONG ANSWER for people with mathematical bend of mind is D

Premise 1) Waste was incinerated and in 40 cases dangerous chemical were released/leaked
Conclusion) New Incinerators design is same as the old incinerator, so more release/leak will occur.

OUR GOAL :- WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION
(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
Correct:- It's not the design but human error that caused the leak. Probably the untrained staff, forgot to shut the valve during incineration.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
Incorrect:- Strengthening the argument. Saying that Incineration despite 40 accidents is still the best option.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
Incorrect:- Talks about capacity and not design of the incinerator. Also wrongly attacks the conclusion rather than premise by saying that new incinerators are no required. BLATANTLY WRONG

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
Incorrect:- Tricky but wrong. Lets say 40 leaks happened per 1000 operations at the old incinerator.
Now one can argue that new incinerator also has 40 leaks per 1000 operations. So the FREQUENCY IS NOT INCREASING. IT IS CONSTANT.
THUS the conclusion which says :-""SUCH LEAKS WILL ONLY BECOME MORE PREVALENT"" is weakened.
But in reality, we are concerned only about NUMBER of leaks, NOT THE FREQUENCY or RATE OF LEAK. There is a fundamental difference in frequency and numbers.
Even if the Frequency is same 40/1000 the Number will still go up 160/4000 if the operation will increase to 4000.

\(\frac{40*4}{1000*4}\)=\(\frac{160 leaks}{4000 Operation}\)


(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
Incorrect:- What is relevant is that leak happened. The impact area of leak is not being discussed. Leak happened ! Period !! End of discussion. What matter is that toxin chemical was released and that is all what the argument is concerned about.

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Kudos [?]: 376 [1], given: 36

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 484

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 342

Concentration: Finance, Marketing
CAT Tests
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2016, 01:53
use of new incinerators => no means to prevent leaks => leaks

anything that states that despite of new design that provide no help to prevent leaks, leaks will become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

weakener
1> what if design of incenrators is such that no additonal mean is required at all.

2> what if volume by leak is lesser than the previous one.

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper
procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

This statement identify a different problem with leakage. it says that staff were problem in previous case. If it is true, then new incinerators will actually can help.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been
proven safer than incineration.

Irrelevant.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste
without any need for new incinerators.

Irrelevant

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about
the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
frequency of reports of unexpected releases => is not related to the issue in hand.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the
property on which the incinerators were located.

Irrelevant

Again, doesn't provide any info if new incinerators will reduce leakage or not, without any additional means.

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 342

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Posts: 205

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 35

GPA: 3.31
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Mar 2017, 02:48
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

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

Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Premise-
Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases,

Conclusion-
leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

Weaken statement will include a factor which will suggest that there is no issue with design. and the cause of the 2 leaks
is not the design.


(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper
procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
Cause is not design. Rather, it was due to inadequate training to the stuffs.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been
proven safer than incineration.

Out of topic. Less concerned with other methods.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste
without any need for new incinerators.
Out of topic. Less concerned with the capacity comparisions.
(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about
the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

Out of topic. Less concerned with the capacity frequencies.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the
property on which the incinerators were located.

Irrelevant.
_________________

In case you find my posts helpful, give me Kudos. Thank you.

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 35

Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 788

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 274

Premium Member CAT Tests
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2017, 11:26
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

This is a cause and effect type of argument.

Fact…………then comes a contrast (BUT).
Fact…………..conclusion.

This is a typical situation when based on ONLY one reason (CAUSE), the conclusion is drawn.
To weaken such argument, we attack the reasoning. If the reasoning falls apart, then the conclusion will also fall.

How to weaken: Bring in some other cause.

Analogy:
Tia worked for 120 hours and solved every single question. Yet she was not able to score 700 in GMAT.

But it could be that these two reasons are not the real root of the problem. May be she just solved without analyzing or did not pay proper attention.

(Bad analogy :-) )

Coming back to the question:

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

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
Wow. Less training and opponents are blaming the structure of the plant. They did not do proper home work and came to a conclusion.

CORRECT

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
OUT OF SCOPE. “Other means”: Does this new angle solves the situation here? No.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
But the main problem still exists: Leakage of chemicals. It does not impact the argument in any way.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
Reports are there and this option is irrelevant. (same as C).

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
OUT OF SCOPE. Inside the property or outside, leakage is there.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
_________________

Help me make my explanation better by providing a logical feedback.

If you liked the post, HIT KUDOS !!

Don't quit.............Do it.

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 274

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 204

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Nonprofit
GPA: 3.65
WE: Sales (Consumer Products)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2017, 07:13
WillGetIt wrote:
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

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

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.


First of all, this is cause and effect argument.

Conclusion : increase of usage led to leaks.

So, the weakener here is the option that shows that there is another cause rather than just increase of usage that led to leaks.

Option A clearly express this : it says that maybe the cause of leaks is incompetent staffs, not the increase of usage.
_________________

There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 204

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1087

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 1030

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Nov 2017, 23:16
A is obviously the answer. Test takers should learn the pattern in A b/c it is a common pattern in the real gmat test.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 1030

Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to   [#permalink] 03 Nov 2017, 23:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.