GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Sep 2018, 21:45

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 184
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Jul 2015, 08:35
9
18
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:34) correct 24% (02:04) wrong based on 2177 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.

Use of Incineration

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word weakens indicates that this is a Weaken the Argument question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

last year: 40 incin leaks

new inc: no new safety features

Ó If increase incin à more leaks

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Weaken questions, the correct answer should make the conclusion less likely to be valid. The argument states that, if incineration increases, then there will be more leaks. What information might call this conclusion into question?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. This information provides a potential reason for the 40 spills at the 2 old incinerators: The staff was not properly trained. If the staff at other incinerators is appropriately trained, an increase in incineration will not necessarily lead to more leaks. This information weakens the argument.

(B) The conclusion of the argument is not about whether incineration is the safest method of waste disposal; it is about whether increased incineration will lead to more leaks. This answer is not relevant.

(C) This answer suggests that incineration could be increased without building new incinerators by using unused capacity at the old incinerators. This choice does not, however, provide new information relative to the conclusion: whether increased use of incineration will lead to more leaks.

(D) This answer strengthens the argument. It provides an additional reason to believe that more incineration will lead to more leaks, since the frequency of leaks is the same at new incinerators.

(E) This information implies that leaks may not be that harmful, at least beyond the property of the incinerator. But this fact is irrelevant to the conclusion, which is about the frequency of leaks, not their severity.
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 175
Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Jul 2015, 06:37
5
3
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 !!!!

General Discussion
Retired Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 487
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

Retired Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 487
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

Intern
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 10
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 3.3
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2107
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 May 2016, 21:03
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.

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

Intern
Joined: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 10
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 3.3
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 May 2016, 06:54
Skywalker18 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.

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.
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4033
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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 safeOpponents : Incidence of 40 incidents involved unexpected release of dangerous chemicalsConclusion : 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)
_________________

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 )

Current Student
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 872
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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+

Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 583
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2016, 04:00
4
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.

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 400
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Posts: 195
GPA: 3.31
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.

Director
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 720
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.

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.

Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 235
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1789
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2017
Posts: 80
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.41
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Dec 2017, 16:11
chesstitans wrote:
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.

Interesting claim, can you kindly elaborate on the pattern you mentioned. This could help many I feel. Regards
Manager
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 178
Location: United States
WE: Supply Chain Management (Computer Hardware)
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Dec 2017, 19:02
mikemcgarry
Somehow I am not satisfied with the answers above. The conclusion is Since designs for proposed [b]new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases[/b]

In A it says the stuff is not trained properly. But how do we know after new incinerators are installed the stuff will be trained? The argument doesn't say so.

At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4664
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Dec 2017, 15:47
3
Turkish wrote:
mikemcgarry
Somehow I am not satisfied with the answers above. The conclusion is Since designs for proposed [b]new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases[/b]

In A it says the stuff is not trained properly. But how do we know after new incinerators are installed the stuff will be trained? The argument doesn't say so.

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

Dear Turkish,

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, to thrive on the GMAT CR, you can't be fundamentalist, looking exclusively at the precise mathematical meaning of the words. Instead, you have to treat the people making the argument and mentioned in the argument as real people with real agendas. Related, it's very good to have a general sense of the kinds of agendas real people in different fields have. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

OK, with this in mind, let's look at this prompt.
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.

So, we don't know the geographic region concerned--maybe a state, maybe the US--it's unclear. I believe we can assume it's a large region, maybe a country, with hundreds of incinerators. For example, here's a page that lists Commercial Trash Incinerators in the US.

The "opponents of incineration" have every motivation to make incineration look as bad as possible. If these people primarily point to the 40 incidents at just two plants, this strongly implies that these were by far the worst violations, because of there were more leaks elsewhere, the "opponents of incineration" would have brought those up too! Thus, we can be reasonably confident that, while this high number of leaks happened at just two incinerators, the vast majority of incinerators had few if any leaks. Thus, these two incinerators are the exception, not the rule.

When I read that prompt, I immediately thought: OK, we are looking for something suspect or substandard going on at these two incinerators in particular.

The only answer choice that distinguishes something about these two incinerators from all the others is (A).

Let's put (A) together with the rest of what we know.

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

At these two incinerators, staff did not have proper training. Is this common or not?

Well, of course, in the real world, in an industry in which there are safety regulations and agree-upon "proper procedures," there often are mechanism for making industries comply: inspectors, safety boards, or fines, or etc. etc. At least there's some pressure to make companies comply, although it works out better or worse in various industries.

Think about the world of this CR question. Again, 40 violations in two incinerators with poorly trained staffs, and few if any violations at the very large number of others. It would seem that at these other incinerators, either the staff was trained enough, or no toxic wastes were delivered there. It sounds as if the combination (presence of toxic waste + poorly trained staff, though unfortunate, is quite rare--this combination seems to have arisen only at these two incinerators.

Thus, this is a relatively rare problem, and there are no reasons to expect that the problem will mushroom.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 162
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jul 2018, 23:15
New ones don't have any extra preventive measure. So, they are the same as the old one in terms of leaking.

My thought process: The author assumes both are same---- but they may not be. There may be totally different factors of leaking in the old ones.

I was looking for the difference between the two. To me, D is totally opposite.
Director
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 539
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jul 2018, 23:53
Raihanuddin wrote:
New ones don't have any extra preventive measure. So, they are the same as the old one in terms of leaking.

My thought process: The author assumes both are same---- but they may not be. There may be totally different factors of leaking in the old ones.

I was looking for the difference between the two. To me, D is totally opposite.

Hello,

The OA is A. Your reasoning is partially wrong (colored part). The new and the old incinerators are same in terms of their design.
The green colored part of your reasoning is correct; the leaking happened not because of design but because of the operators. So, it can be argued that the new incinerators are not gonna leak because of their designs.
A mentions the same.
_________________

------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"
Hit Kudus if this has helped you get closer to your goal, and also to assist others save time. Tq

Re: Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to &nbs [#permalink] 27 Jul 2018, 23:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

Events & Promotions

 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®.