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

 It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 11:31

### 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 24 Sep 2017, 20:54
1
10
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (02:00) correct 41% (02:10) wrong based on 523 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

Originally posted by Nihit on 06 Aug 2009, 07:05.
Last edited by broall on 24 Sep 2017, 20:54, edited 2 times in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 296
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2009, 06:59
3
5
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.
_________________
Lahoosaher
##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 114
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 08:17
5
1
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.
Manager
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 164
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 09:01
I initially thought B, but after erading whathehell's explanation I am leaning towards C.
I am curious to knowwhat the OA is?
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 491
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 09:26
1
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.
_________________
Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html
Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 180
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 10:36
would go with C as it suggests that the reason for not doing it in the densed areas is because of economic and bureucratic reasons as opposed to safty...
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 17
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 15:32
I go with C.

Author's argument is that Policy makers do not locate dump sites in densely populated regions is because there is AT LEAST some degree of danger associated (which they do not talk about - hence the misgiving).

C clearly indicates that Policy makers locate dump site in sparsely populated regions because of bureaucratic and economic reasons. This negates the AT LEAST argument.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 357
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2009, 07:55
1
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
_________________
If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.
Manager
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 214
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2009, 23:20

Intern
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 33
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 00:11
1
one more C
Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 3
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 03:03
I go with C - it is probably due to evidence of low risk to the safety of indivudals in rural areas, that pose less economic and bureaucatic constrains.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 296
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2009, 13:24
2
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
_________________
Lahoosaher
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 257
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2010, 12:17
16. 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.

OA is
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 156
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2010, 16:28
3
(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.

Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Posts: 133
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2010, 21:21
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 110
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2010, 22:14
vaivish1723 wrote:
16. 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.

OA is

only choice C speaks about reasons other than health so it is the correct answer choice
Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 25
Location: Mumbai
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 10:54
Although I didn't understand the argument part completely, by the process of elimination I selected C. Could someone please tell what does the last line of the argument mean?
_________________
Consider kudos for good explanations.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 252
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 11:14
mbasaikiran wrote:
Although I didn't understand the argument part completely, by the process of elimination I selected C. Could someone please tell what does the last line of the argument mean?

Quote:
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.

The first part says - Dumping nuclear waste has no threat / harmful effects on the people who reside in the nearby areas. Therefore, why no dump nuclear waste in areas of dense population e.g. middle of the city.

Second part says - HOWEVER, because there is a policy that waste can only be dumped in sparsely populated regions shows that the people who have come up with the policy are themselves not sure about the fact that the waste dumping has no detrimental effects on the nearby population. If these policy makers really believed what they said about no harmful effects, then we should be allowed to dump the waste anywhere.
_________________
All things are possible to those who believe.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 375
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2011, 12:59
C is straight forward here.took 1:24 min
Manager
Status: One last try =,=
Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Posts: 124
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2011, 03:36
I am confused about the conclusion of this CR problem.
The conclusion is: "there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population", isn't it? If so, choice C can be the correct answer.
_________________
There can be Miracles when you believe
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste   [#permalink] 28 Jun 2011, 03:36

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 38 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by