It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no th

I would disagree. IMO C.

The argument says that there has to be some safety implication for the responsible ones to dump nuclear wastes only in the more sparsely populated regions. So in order to weaken this argument, we need to find an alternative explanation as to why they are dumping nuclear wastes in those sparsely populated areas despite safety not being an issue.

Option C says that there there are other reasons -

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

(A) Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.
>> Strengthens the argument. This belives there is still a chance of it being dangerous.
(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.
>> Strengthens the argument. Same reason as above.
(C) Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.
>> Weakens the argument. Because, this shows it is only because of economic and bureaucratic problems and not because of threat to living near by.
(D) There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.
>> Strengthens the argument. Same reason as point1.
(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.
>> Strengthens the argument. It shows there is still a doubt that the nuclear dump is not safe.

My Answer is C.

C for me.

When I read the passage. I started looking for the economic reason(cost factors => easily available cheap land. C has it. Not sure about the bureaucratic problems.

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

Situation : It is claimed that the nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby and hence nuclear waste dumping could be located near sites in areas of dense population.
But there is a policy in place which requires dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions.

Argument : From the policy for dumping nuclear waste it is clear that there is some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.

Assumption : there is no factor other than safety which governs the policies made for the dumping of nuclear wasts.

(C) catches this miss and provides an alternative explanation for the policy ...
Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

IMO C
OA C
_________________

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.

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".

===other answers

(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.
_________________

Nihit and Bunuel
Choice A needs correction imo.
"Evaluation" Plans to "Evacuation" Plans

Even though it's "Evaluation" in the source, I think they do mean "Evacuation", so edited as suggested. Thank you.
_________________

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?

We are looking for the another reason why the policy makers insist on dumping in sparse population area besides the safety issue to weaken that argument that policy makers are purely concerned about safety when they dump nuclear waste in sparse population area. C is the only answer that provide with an alternative reason.

Official Explanation from Powerscore:

Weaken-CE. The correct answer choice is (C).

This is a Weaken question with a heavy Causal element, so let's start by examining the argument in the stimulus, finding the conclusion, and then discussing the cause and effect relationship(s) present.

The author begins by introducing what is said to be a common claim: dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. Typically when a stimulus begins with a belief attributed to some group the author will proceed to argue that that belief is incorrect, and that's exactly what occurs here.

The next sentence begins the author's counterargument, stating that if the claims of safety could be made with certainty then nuclear waste would (or at least could) be dumped in areas of dense population. However, the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in sparsely populated regions indicates that at least some misgivings exist among policy makers about how safe that waste is.

Note the causality here: the author has observed an occurrence--the dumping of nuclear waste only in more sparely populated regions--and concluded its cause, that dumping that waste in densely populated areas would pose a threat to the people living there.

Cause: Nuclear waste is dangerous (i.e. People's safety) / Effect: Dumping nuclear waste away from people

We're asked to weaken this relationship, and as is often the case with Weaken questions and Causality, the most powerful way to do it is to introduce any alternate cause that could also lead to the observed effect. Here the author is arguing for safety as the cause, so if we can show any other reason besides safety for dumping waste in sparsely populated areas we'd seriously undermine that belief.

Answer choice (A): This is about the safety of people in the event of an accident and how evacuations are more likely to fail with large populations, meaning it strengthens the argument! It gives further evidence that safety is in fact the cause, which is what the author has concluded.

Answer choice (B): Again, another strengthening answer supporting the idea that safety concerns are the reason for dumping nuclear waste away from densely populated areas. This is precisely what we DON'T want to show.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Here we're given an alternate cause to safety as the reason for dumping waste in sparsely populated areas: fewer economic and bureaucratic problems. That is, it's not safety that's behind the dumping decisions, it's money and legislative/bureaucratic headaches. This is classic Weaken-Causality at work.

Answer choice (D): This is perhaps less helpful than (A) and (B), but it still provides some support to the author's position. If chemical waste is treated similarly to nuclear waste (dumped away from people), and chemical waste is known to be dangerous, then it stands to reason that safety/danger concerns are driving the dumping decisions involving both. Regardless, this certainly doesn't attack the link between safety concerns and where the waste is dumped, so it doesn't weaken the argument.

Answer choice (E): Once more, we're given information that agrees with the author's view. Here it's suggested that some doubts do exist about the safety of nuclear dumps, and those doubts about safety are why it's sensible to dump the waste where it poses the least threat to the public. So safety is again the reason behind the dumping practice, and the author's argument is ever so slightly helped.

Vinit800HBS aren't (A) (B) and (C) all three giving us another reason for choosing to dump waste in areas that are sparsely populated? So why does C win over A and B?

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?

The argument is based on a hypothetical(not in reality as assumed by author if so) situation that with certainty in claim the possibility exists for locating sites in densely populated areas. On one side there's this safety issue that is claimed and on the contrary in reality such thing don't happen - dumping of nuclear waste at densely populated areas.

A. Evacuation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small. - WRONG. Touches rightly upon areas of concern but eventually it strengthens the case since claim is made as if there's certainty but in reality dumping happens in sparsely populated areas.

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. - WRONG. Strengthens only. Even if claim says so that there's no threat to people, some people would still be harmed in the event of accident.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas. - CORRECT. Gives an alternative reason for why dumping is done in sparsely populated areas. Its funny that this can't again be point towards misgiving about safety since safety of people is ignored by policy to choose economic and bureaucratic reasons.

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

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. - WRONG. Again kind of similar to A and B.

Answer C.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

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

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________