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

Passage analysis

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste.

Incineration is believed to be a safe way of disposing of chemical waste.
Supporters of the method believe its use should be increased.

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.

But there are people who object to the method.
They point out to 40 incidents reported last year at two existing incinerators that were employed to destroy a certain amount of chemical waste material.
These incidents were of sudden leakage of dangerous chemicals.

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

The building of new incinerators has been proposed.
But the designs for these new incinerators do not have any extra provision or feature to prevent such leakages in the future.
Therefore, leaks will only become more common if incinerators are continued to be used.

Conclusion
Leaks will become more widespread if the use of incineration increases

Pre-thinking
Weaken Framework
Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the weaken framework:

What new information will make us believe less in the conclusion
Leaks will become more widespread if the use of incineration increases

Given that
Increased use of incineration is sometimes believed to be a safe way to dispose of chemical waste
There are people who oppose incineration
They point out last year’s 40 incidents
These took place at two existing incinerators.
Dangerous chemicals were suddenly released while destroying chemical waste.
Designs of proposed new incinerators do not have any additional means of preventing such leaks.

Thought process

The author believes that what happened last year might happen to the newly proposed incinerators since no further precautionary measures are being undertaken.

This belief is based on the thinking that the existing incinerators are to be blamed for the leaks.

The author even talks about the designs of the proposed incinerators which indicates his line of reasoning.

He probably finds the design of existing incinerators faulty (likely there were no features that could have prevented the leaks) and predicts that if nothing is done to improve on it, leaks such as last year’s will become common even in the proposed incinerators (since they too are devoid of additional precautionary measures).

But what if it is not the design that is at fault, in the first place?

Weakener

So, if an option indicates that there was some other factor that was responsible for the last year’s leaks, then it will weaken the conclusion.

Answer Choice Analysis
Option A

This option states that it was the lack of proper training of the staff handling the chemical waste that led to the leaks. And this is something that is not related to the design of the incinerators. So, likely the design of the proposed incinerators will not lead to frequent leaks in the future.
This is in line with our pre-thinking.
Thus, this is the correct answer choice.

Option B

The other methods are not “safer” could mean two things. They could be “as safe as” or “less safe than”

As safe as- The other means could be as safe as the incinerators. In that case given the leaks in the two incinerators, the other methods could be used to dispose of the material. This would in a way support the conclusion which discourages the use of incinerators.

But the other meaning is “less safe than”. This means the other methods are less safe than the incinerators. Therefore, the use of incinerators should be continued. This weakens the conclusion.

But an option like this that has a dual impact cannot be used either to strengthen or to weaken an argument.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option C

This option rules out the need for incinerators but not because they are unsafe. Hence, this option is mostly irrelevant to the discussion.

Option D

This would be more of a support for the opponents to the building of new incinerators. If the history of incinerators is full of frequent reports of sudden leaks, then all the more reason not to extend the use.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option E

Just because the chemical leaks in the majority of the cases did not extend beyond the incinerator location limits does not mean such leaks are acceptable. This option would still seem to do away with the use of incinerators.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

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 .

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.

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 staff is not trained properly. But how do we know after new incinerators are installed the staff 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

I thought (B) was an attractive option. However, it ultimately does not weaken the argument. Although we are told that other means of disposing of chemical waste have not been proven safer than incineration, we are not told anything about whether they cause fewer leaks. Also, for (B) to be a viable option, the conclusion would have instead needed to be "leaks will become more prevalent only if use of incineration increases".

I passed over (A) because it isn't clear that going forward incineration staff will receive proper training. Although I believe that in order to weaken the conclusion specifically (A) would need to guarantee that going forward incineration staff will receive proper training, I also believe that in order to cast doubt on the premise (A) does not need to make this guarantee. Leaks may, in fact, become more prevalent as the use of incineration increases, but at least we know that the leaks at those two existing incinerators were not caused by faulty incinerator design. And therefore, those two existing incinerators do not help us reach the conclusion.

(A) only attacks a premise rather than directly weakening the conclusion; however, because the argument consists of this premise, the argument overall is weakened. If another option directly weakened the conclusion, then that option would more seriously weaken the argument than (A).

On this 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?

(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.

I got this right - had it down to A and C. Was leaning towards A and ended up selecting that. However, C was intriguing. The argument is: "Since designs of proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases."

BUT, C says that there is no need for further incinerators to be built, hence, the argument that the new incinerators will create more leaks is simply invalid.

A is definitely more relevant to the passage, but C completely nullifies the conclusion.

Any advice would be appreciated!

GK002, option C does not nullify the conclusion. See the last few words of the passage. The passage rests on a condition. Option C does not tell us what happens when we increase incineration, the author would still feel that the leaks would be more prevalent if the same facilities are being used to a much larger degree. This option does not add much to the argument.

Remember, the conclusion of the argument does not rest on new incinerators being built. Hope this helps!

Conclusion - Leaks will become more prevalent if use of incineration increases at these new incinerators.
Leaks could be due to human error as well! - Hence A

Thanks Mike.
I eliminated A because on number of similar CR questions, I have seen explanations that say.... "okay, well that explains the cause but does NOT guarantee the prevention/resurfacing of that cause, so eliminate (such) answer choice..."

However, the explanation made all sense. And yes, will follow the advice of NOT being a fundamentalist on GMAT CR.

ReedArnoldMPREP

Would you be able to share your reasoning as to why each wrong answer choice is incorrect? I always read the OG's reasoning behind why each incorrect answer is wrong, and I see how answer choice A is correct, but I struggled in particular for the OG's reasoning as to why choices B, C, and D were exactly incorrect.

B: I think B is wrong because it is not relevant. It does not weaken or strengthen. Basically, it is telling you the other options are not necessarily safer, but it does not directly attack the opponents' view that leaks will become more prevalent.

C: Is wrong because the new incinerators do not have "additional means of preventing such releases", so who cares if they use new or old machines.

D: I do not see how the OG can say this is incorrect in that this is "a finding that provides additional evidence that increased incineration even with proposed new incinerators would lead to more leaks." The argument only touches upon the TWO incinerators. This seems to undermine what the question provides in that now suddenly the other plants out there are just as bad as the 2 plants with the 40 incidents.

E: I understand why the OG thinks this is incorrect.

First we want to identify the conclusion, and purpose of the argument. The conclusion is "leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases", which is because of the "40 incidents involved unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents...". We need to find a way to attack the unexpected releases in this phrase since it's the main issue in the argument that supports the conclusion.

B doesn't weaken or strengthen it's a neutral statement that's out of scope.

C doesn't weaken the argument.

D strengthens the argument.

E is out of scope and provides a neutral appeal to the argument.

A points to WHY there were "unexpected releases", which were from a lack of proper training that lead to the leaks.

Hello Experts,

KarishmaB , GMATNinja , RonTargetTestPrep , AndrewN

I am confused why Option A is correct ?
Can we challenge the FACT/PREMISE given in the statement ?

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste——– FACT

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—FACT

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 ——AUTHORS ARGUMENT.

Here option A says that it is not the incinerators but the staff who are responsible for the leakage.
We are challenging the given information / the PREMISE itself.
Can we do that ?

Choice D is much more inline with the Process that we have learned ie weakening the ARGUMENT.

Now the argument says that the leaks will become more prevalent.

Choice D says that the frequency will remain same for NEW incinerators.
Lets say 100 leaks happened per 1000 operations at the old incinerator.
Now , New incinerator will also have 100 leaks per 1000 operations. So the FREQUENCY IS NOT INCREASING. IT IS CONSTANT.

Hence Choice D breaks down the Authors Argument.

Thanks.

Hi Priyam,

This post came to my attention. Maybe I can help.

From what I see, there are three points that need to be discussed here:

1. Why is option A not really challenging/going against the given premise?
2. Why is option A the correct answer?
3. Why is option D incorrect? (in fact, it is a strengthener (!))

1. Why is option A not really challenging/going against the given premise?

Look at the following sentence:

Paracetamol is sometimes suggested as a medicine for migraine.


What is the fact here?

1. Paracetamol is a medicine for migraine OR
2. Sometimes, Paracetamol is suggested by some people as a medicine for migraine.

From the sentence, the only thing we know as a fact is that paracetamol gets suggested sometimes (not necessarily by the author of the sentence!) as a medicine for migraine.

We do not know for a fact that paracetamol really is a medicine for migraine. For all we know, it may be horrible for migraine!

Similarly,

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste.

What is the fact here?

Is it a fact that incineration is a safe way to dispose of chemical waste?
Or
Is it a fact that incineration is sometimes promoted as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste?

Clearly the latter!

In other words, the factual premise is NOT that incineration is a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. It is only that incineration is sometimes pushed as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste (this advocacy/promotion of incineration - we have no idea who these people are who are doing it, by the way!).

And so, option A does not go against the premise!

Think about it this way, if it is a fact that incineration is a safe way to dispose of chemical waste, is the conclusion logical? If incineration is safe, then why is the author worried about chemical leaks (of dangerous (unsafe) chemicals!) from incinerators?


2. Why is option A the correct answer?

Argument in a nutshell

- 40 leak incidents from 2 existing incinerators in the last year
- No additional stuff meant to prevent such leaks in the designs for the proposed new incinerators
- So, if the use of incineration increases, more such leaks will happen (Conclusion)

It is based on the incidents that occurred at these 2 existing incinerators that the author makes this conclusion.

But what if the cause of these leakage incidents at these 2 incinerators was something else? i.e., What if the incinerators cannot be blamed?

For instance: What if human error was the real reason? The incinerators worked beautifully, but the people at these 2 incinerators did not follow the proper process. And that is what caused the incidents. Then, the incinerators designs are good as is. These incidents have nothing to do with the incinerators. So, with new incinerators coming in with the good-as-is design, we do not really expect leakage incidents to go up too.

This is what option A does. It casts doubt on the conclusion being drawn (in other words - weakens the argument), by introducing an alternate reason for the incidents - human error due to inadequate training. Then, can we really blame the incinerators? For all we know, those designs are perfect as they are, and the increased usage with new incinerators will have no such leakage issues.


3. Why is option D incorrect? (in fact, it is a strengthener (!))


(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.

Remember: It is based on the incidents that occurred at these 2 existing incinerators (i.e., older incinerators) that the author makes this conclusion.

The older incinerators are bad - such a high frequency of incidents (40 incidents in just one year).

If new incinerators have the same frequency of incidents as old incinerators (which is what option D is suggesting!), given that the old ones have had such a bad run, does it not make you worry more about leakage incidents?

Here, the notion that "frequency is not increasing" and it is constant is not good enough. The real problem is that even if the frequency is the same (constant) as the old, the old ones are in a bad situation!

The old ones seem to have a history of leakage incidents (40 in just one year, from just 2 incinerators). If the new ones are going to have the same frequency of incidents, it strengthens the belief that more leaks are bound to happen with more incineration happening.


This is why option D is actually a strengthener, not a weakener.


Hope this helps!

Harsha

Skywalker18
Though I understand A is best among all. But i recently read about control group thing in an experiment.
And left this choice thinking the control group is not mentioned. We are not told about other staff or am I misreading something?