Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 20 Jul 2019, 11:08

### 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

# It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 950
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2011, 03:42
C gives an alternate reason for dumping the N-waste. hence an OA.
Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 165
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2011, 05:53
C .. alternative explanation for the action
_________________
Looking for Kudos
Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 158
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2012, 05:41
acer2knight wrote:

Initially I also thought it should be E. Now I realize my mistake and understand it should be C.

In the argument, it is very clearly stated that "...If this claim could be made with certainty...". This means, the author is accepting the conclusion would be true if and only if the claim can be made with certainty. So, there is no point in weakening the argument on this basis.

E is really a trap and the correct answer is C.
_________________
-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti
Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 214
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2012, 02:08
C straight. nice question though
_________________
Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 98
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2012, 01:58
C :- As it gives advanatge which works against given logic
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 12
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2012, 18:16
Need to find something that gives alternative explanation behind why the policy is to dump in sparse areas.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.
It is not because the waste is harmful but because economic and bureaucratic reasons, waste is dumped in sparse areas.
I vote C
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2012
Posts: 69
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 650 Q51 V25
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2012, 10:06
Nihit wrote:
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public.

It would be really helpful if you could post the OA.

IMO - C
Dumping NW - no threat.
If claim certain - then dump in areas of D. Popu.
But - policy - Dump NW in Sp. Popu.
Indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.
A hint of Safety issue - will not weaken.

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area.
A hint of Safety issue - will not weaken.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.
Only option left. Clearly shows that Dumping in sp. popu is due to economic and bureau probs, and not a least issue of safety.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.
+ve correlation with Safety issue - Strengthens.

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public.
A hint of Safety issue - Strengthens misgivings.
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 38
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2012, 22:46
Good question.. Took a lot of time to figure it out.
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 126
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2012, 03:26
Use of double negative in the second line made it a bit difficult to decipher properly.
Completely agree with the OA.
Thank you for the question.
Intern
Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 15
GMAT Date: 09-12-2013
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 03:54
Y U NO POST OA?

Remember, someone is still waiting for it.
_________________
If KUDOS then gmatclub Test series.
YEAH!!
Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 18
Location: Poland
GRE 1: Q161 V153
GPA: 3.8
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2013, 22:33
It is C. The answer C knocks out the position of the author saying that the reason for creating dumping sites in a sparsely populated area has nothing to do with the safety but only with the burocracy.
Current Student
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 27
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
GPA: 2.92
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2016, 01:46
what source of this question?
i afraid it from GMAT Prep, so that I will get the old question in my mock up test.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 262
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2017, 13:04
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________
Senior Manager
Status: love the club...
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Posts: 275
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2017, 17:32
Nihit wrote:
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public.

Source: LSAT

very fabulous question, indeed

the argument allows for some misgivings about waste's detrimental effect on humans, as garbages are dumped in sparsely populated areas.
So, the best way to weaken the argument is to find a good reason behind such dumping...

C clearly has done the job.
thanks

cheers trough the kudos button if this helps
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1524
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2017, 21:50
the source is from LSAT, so the question has much different pattern and intelligible sense from a gmat question.

C is truly the answer, b/c C gives an additional reason and a clear comparison between a dense area and a sparsely location.

E is out b/ of "make sense"
A is wrong b/c of "evaluation"
B is incorrect b/c of "event of accident"
D is eliminated b/c of "dangers"
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2356
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2017, 20:14
Nihit wrote:
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public.

Source: LSAT

I think the conclusion here is an implicit one: "dumping nuclear waste may pose some threat to people living nearby".

Whenever an argument begins with an ascription such as "it is repeatedly claimed", "it is often assumed", "many people believe", etc. ... 98% of the time the author's purpose/conclusion is to disagree with that initial claims.

So when I see the claim of "dumping nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby", I see the author's conclusion as: "we should doubt this claim".

why should we doubt this claim?

If ppl REALLY believed that dumping waste was harmless, then waste sites would be located in areas of dense population.

But since these sites seem to only be cropping up in sparse areas, I guess there really IS suspicion of danger.

the correct answer (C) effectively undermines the truth of the conditional in the 2nd sentence. (C) suggests that "even if nuclear waste sites were certain to pose no threat, there would STILL be good reasons for putting them in sparse rather than dense areas".

(A), (B), and (D) are all strengthening the argument by agreeing with the author that the reasons for favoring sparse over dense areas for nuclear waste sites include the possibly of an accident (i.e., these answers suggest that waste sites DO pose some threat to people living nearby)

(D) is technically out of scope, but the gist of it is still in line with how (A) and (B) work.

(E) also seems to strengthen the argument, if anything. It means something slightly different from the 2nd sentence of the stimulus, but it's very close in agreeing with the author's overall sentiment.
_________________
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: 10 Sep 2017
Posts: 5
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2017, 07:37
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small. Irrelevant

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area. Similar to C but C has a better alternate explanation.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas. Looks right. bureaucrats are linked to the policy makers.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population. Strengthens

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public. Assuming too much

But the argument is about safety of people not the economic one, than why C? i know AO is C. But question remains why?
Intern
Joined: 03 Mar 2019
Posts: 5
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2019, 13:40
Nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby.

To weaken the argument, we need to strengthen the above statement.

For me C is not a very good option, Since it can be said that nuclear waste poses economic and bureaucratic problems/Threat.
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste   [#permalink] 21 Mar 2019, 13:40

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 38 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by