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

It is currently 15 Aug 2018, 00:04

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 419
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 24 Sep 2017, 20:54
1
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (01:17) correct 44% (01:30) wrong based on 475 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.
Added OA
Most Helpful Community Reply
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 339
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

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 136
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2009, 08:17
1
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 202
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 678
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2009, 09:26
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 ... :beer
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 255
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 20
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Applying
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 129
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2009, 21:22
COnfused :?

could be C or D
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 424
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

New post 08 Aug 2009, 07:55
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.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 260
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2009, 23:20
my first answer was E.

OA please
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 46
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

Show Tags

New post 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
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 339
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

New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 301
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 185
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2010, 16:28
2
(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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Posts: 163
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2010, 21:21
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 136
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 32
Location: Mumbai
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 313
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 533
Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2011, 12:59
C is straight forward here.took 1:24 min
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Re: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste &nbs [#permalink] 06 May 2011, 12:59

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 38 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.