In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage

Solution

Passage Analysis

In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it.
In a village, people usually burn household waste to dispose it of.

Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins.
This activity of burning waste releases toxins called dioxins.

New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area.
New environment conservation rules mandate lesser packaging of paper and cardboard for things sold in the village.

Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.
Because these packaging materials contain dioxins, if the new rules are implemented, dioxin pollution will go down in the area as one result.

Question Stem Analysis

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
This is a direct weakener question stem.

Prethinking

What if in this area, paper and cardboard packaging is not burnt, only reused or recycled? i.e. all the household garbage that is burned does not contain paper and cardboard?
The argument is assuming that these packaging elements are also burnt.
So one weakener would be any statement that suggests that paper and cardboard packaging is not burnt in this rural area.

Answer Choice Analysis

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
CORRECT
Before regulation – large quantities of paper and cardboard in garbage- this can easily burn hot enough for some portions of the dioxins to be destroyed.
After regulation- Not enough quantity of paper and carboard to reach high temperatures, more dioxins may reach atmosphere. Weakens the argument that dioxin pollution will lessen.
It is possible that the dioxin emitted in the earlier case may still be higher but this option can create a doubt in us. Hence it is a successful weakener.

B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
INCORRECT
Whether packaging materials make up a higher volume or higher weight has no impact on how the implementation of the new regulation affect dioxin pollution. Hence this is not the right answer.

C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
INCORRECT
This option is a comparison of dioxin laden products mentioned-paper and cardboard packaging- in urban and rural areas. But our comparison is before and after the new rule is implemented in only rural areas (comparison with urban areas is irrelevant). Hence this answer is incorrect.

D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
INCORRECT
Why the new regulations were brought in is not a relevant matter for this argument. All we care about is reducing dioxin pollution. Hence this is an incorrect answer choice.

E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.
INCORRECT
Whether or not dioxins cause serious health problems, what we are concerned about is reduction is dioxin pollution, the step before that. Hence this is an incorrect answer choice.

Conclusion: Reducing paper and cardboard packaging will reduce the amount of dioxin pollution in the area.

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
So if we reduce the amount of paper and cardboard in the garbage, the garbage won't burn hot enough to destroy some of the dioxins. This weakens the conclusion. So we'll keep A

B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
This has no effect on the conclusion that says reducing paper and cardboard packaging will reduce the amount of dioxin pollution in the area
Eliminate B

C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
This has no effect on the conclusion that says reducing paper and cardboard packaging will reduce the amount of dioxin pollution in the area
Eliminate C

D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
The motivation for the new regulations has no effect on the conclusion that says reducing paper and cardboard packaging will reduce the amount of dioxin pollution in the area
Eliminate D

E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.
The conclusion has nothing to do with health. The conclusion is concerned only with the fact that reducing paper and cardboard packaging will reduce the amount of dioxin pollution in the area.
Since E is irrelevant to the conclusion, we can eliminate it

Answer: A

Can someone please weigh in on this? GMATNinja?

I thought either A or B.

I went with B because presumably if waste takes up less weight then the other more dense components could contribute to Dioxins -- but perhaps this would contradict the premises.

Dear VeritasKarishma
I used a similar reasoning. Can you please explain what is the flaw in this argument?

The answer is A

In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed. In CR questions context is key. The people dispose of household garbage by burning. This answer says that LARGE quantities of paper and cardboard usually destroy some of the dioxins so they are not released into the atmosphere.IF the regulation goes through to reduce the amount of paper and cardboard packaging, when people burn the amount of paper and cardboard will not be large enough to destroy the dioxins and these dioxins would be released into the atmosphere. The answer is clearly A.
B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume. Could be interpreted in too many ways to actually weaken the argument
C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas. We are speaking of a CERTAIN rural area
D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth. It odes not matter what motivated the regulations
E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems. Like C,D and E does not address the issue at hand

I don't really understand the reasoning discussed here. The regulations require reduction in paper and cardboard. Nothing else increases. When paper and cardboard packaging is reduced, the quantity as well as volume of paper and cardboard will reduce in the garbage. If the volume will reduce by much more than weight (because paper and cardboard are lightweight voluminous items), it doesn't matter - at the end of the day, both are reducing only.
If other components were contributing to dioxin, they still will at the same level. Nothing says that they will increase.

My take on this:

Logic behind
Option B basically goes on the lines that
Since the Proportion of Weight of the Cardboards and paper in the Garbage is already low, the regulation to curbs the usage of these items would NOT reduce dioxin emission.

One Catch in this logic is no matter how small the dioxin content released by the cardboards or paper , curbing the burning of these will bring down the dioxin level , even if by a small percentage.

Option A states that burning the Cardboard would in turn help to burn the dioxins contained in the garbage ( Cardboads + papers+ etc) Hence the regulations to stop using and as a result burning these in garbage might actually increase the dioxins released as the burning of the cardboards were actually helping in reducing the dioxins. I understand the use of the phrase
‘ some portion of’ is confusing. But it most likely refers to : some portion of dioxins released by all garbage
Which is likely to be greater than the dioxins released by the cardboards alone.


Regards
RB

Posted from my mobile device

In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. - People usually burn garbage.

Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. - Burning garbage releases dioxins.

New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. - New regulations will require a significant reduction in paper and cardboard packaging. (we do not know yet the relation between garbage and paper and cardboard packaging.)

Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area. - Packaging contains dioxins. Thus, implementing the regulations will reduce dioxin pollution. (The author clearly assumes that paper and cardboard packaging materials are burned as garbage.)

Gist: People burn garbage. Burning garbage releases dioxins. Certain packaging materials contain dioxins. Soon regulations will require a major reduction in these packaging materials (support). Once the regulations are implemented, dioxin pollution will reduce (conclusion).


The argument has multiple gaps.

Firstly, as discussed above, the author assumes that ‘paper and cardboard packaging material’ is a part of the ‘garbage’ and is usually eliminated by burning.

Next, how will the regulation impact packaging? What if people start using more harmful (higher dioxin content) packaging materials to handle the regulations?

Also, the argument assumes that burning the packaging materials contributed to dioxin pollution. What if burning the packaging materials did not, somehow, release dioxins in the first place? Maybe, some property of paper or cardboard leads to this.


The goal is to find a reason why dioxin pollution may not be reduced. We could highlight one of the gaps discussed above. There could, as usual, be more gaps as well.


A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
Correct. he option says that some dioxins get destroyed when the garbage being burned contains large quantities of packaging materials. The heat could destroy a higher quantity of dioxins than contained in the packaging material. Thus, a fire containing less paper and cardboard could possibly release more dioxins than a fire with large quantities of the packaging materials. Thus the conclusion ‘implementing the regulations will reduce dioxin pollution’ gets weakened.

We do understand that ‘some portion’ could signify a portion smaller than contributed by the paper and cardboard themselves. Or, it could signify a proportion that compensates for all the packaging materials, and then some. So, while we cannot say for sure that dioxin pollution will not reduce, we can certainly begin to doubt the conclusion of the argument. That is all we need to achieve in order to weaken an argument.

B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
Incorrect. This option tells us that the packaging materials have a low density (weight/volume). That on its own does nothing to weaken the argument. There is nothing in the argument to link dioxin pollution with either weight or volume of garbage. Irrespective of the density, if the quantity of paper and cardboard is reduced, it does appear that dioxin pollution will reduce.

C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that the implementation of the new regulations will reduce dioxin pollution in ‘the area’. How quantities of packaging materials sold in urban areas compare with quantities sold in rural areas does not at all help weaken the argument for one particular rural area.

D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
Incorrect. The motivation behind the regulations is irrelevant. Implementing the regulations will lead to lower dioxin pollution is what we need to weaken. Why the regulations are put into place is immaterial. For example: your reason for getting a good GMAT score may just be to impress your girlfriend. However, our concern is whether a good score will lead to admission in a b-school.

E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.
Incorrect. The argument is about the amount of dioxin pollution. Whether dioxins have adverse effects, or whether the adverse effects are known is irrelevant.


The correct answer choice here, as is quite often the case, does not necessarily destroy the argument. It just lays doubt on the conclusion. That is exactly what ‘weaken’ means. We just need to weaken the argument – i.e. make the argument weaker than before. We do not need to destroy it.


If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

GMATNinja AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma

Here is my reasoning for refuting option 'A', and I have seen this reasoning applied many times in many other CR questions,

The conclusion is that 'the implementation of the new regulations will surely lead to a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area' and we need to weaken this.

Now the new reg. is that there is a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging, which are a source of dioxins.

Option 'A' says, 'Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed'. But, can we be still sure that the amount of dioxins containing packaging that will be taken out from usage in that area will lead to ZERO reduction in the dioxin pollution just because there is some dioxin which will now be released in the atmosphere from the leftover MINOR quantity of dioxin packaging ?

In other words, the amount of dioxins that now will be released will be greater than the amount of dioxin that would have been released in the atmosphere due to burning of that MAJOR quantity of packaging.

Really not sure, if it's a sound reasoning to accept answer as option 'A', as I have seen the above reasoning used a number of times to refute an answer.

Please hep me out here.

Thanks
Saurabh

We need to weaken the argument, not establish it beyond doubt.

In a certain area, people burn their garbage which releases dioxins (say everyday, 100 tonnes of relevant is burnt which releases 1000 cubic feet of dioxin)
New regulations require reduction in paper and cardboard packaging in this area (say only 50 tonnes of relevant garbage will be produced).
This packaging contains dioxins.

Conclusion: Dioxin pollution in the area will reduce. (Now, 50 tonnes will produce only 500 cubic feet of dioxin)

But we need to weaken it.

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.

When we burn 100 tonnes of garbage, it burns hot enough to destroy some dioxin. So dioxin contained may have been 2000 cubic feet but only 1000 cubic feet is released because the other 1000 cubic feet is destroyed
Now, when we will burn 50 tonnes of garbage, it will not burn hot enough so entire 1000 cubic feet might be released in air. So dioxin pollution may not reduce. This makes us doubt our conclusion and that is all we want.

Dear IanStewart GMATGuruNY AjiteshArun GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep GMATRockstar VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber,

Admittedly, choice A. is the best choice.
However, I have the following 2 questions.

Q1. According to choice A., how do we know that SOME PORTION of the dioxins destroyed by paper and cardboard is MORE than (i.e. can offset) the dioxins contained in paper and cardboard itself?

We know that such packaging materials contain dioxins. Let's say there is 10 grams of dioxins per 1 kg. of paper and cardboard. And burning those materials could destroy 1 grams (SOME PORTION).
Hence, there is 9 grams left undestroyed per 1 kg. of paper and cardboard.
So, new regulations should surely lead to a reduction in dioxins.

Q2. Is choice A. correct because of the "WILL SURELY BE" in the question stem?
If we rephrased it to be "MAY BE", then choice A. doesn't weaken the argument at all, right?

You don't know that. But you're not trying to invalidate the argument; you're only trying to weaken it. Answer A gives us a reason to disbelieve the conclusion -- maybe when more paper is discarded, more dioxins burn off. So maybe by discarding less paper, there will be more dioxins released. We at the very least won't get the reduction in dioxins that we might expect. So if A is true, we can't be certain the conclusion is true. The other answers are all completely irrelevant to the conclusion, so A is the best answer.



If you say something "may be" true, you're simultaneously saying that it may be false. So you're not saying anything -- any sentence with those words is true by default. There'd be no way to weaken a conclusion with that wording, because it can't be wrong. For example, the sentence "Farmers are planting more tomatoes this year, so dioxin pollution may be reduced" entails the possibility that "dioxin pollution may increase", so it says nothing, and must be true, and there's no way to weaken a conclusion that must be true.

GMATNinja - boss please explain this one. Why is option B not correct? The conclusion is a generalized statement on pollution while we just talk about household waste, there could well be other things that release dioxins? What if household weight forms only a small percentage of these packaging materials? Also, the conclusion is about the implementation, but the correct answer choice is about garbage burning, are the writers assuming that household waste will continue to get burned? I find this question really irrelevant!

It’s definitely possible that there are other sources of dioxin pollution. But the conclusion is merely that dioxin pollution will be reduced, not eliminated. So, even if there’s still a large amount of dioxin pollution from other sources, the pollution can be reduced by limiting the amount of dioxins contributed by paper and cardboard.

Regarding your second point, it seems fair to assume that people will continue to burn garbage, especially given that the passage notes this is what they normally do. There’s nothing in the passage, regulations, or answer choices that indicates the people would stop burning garbage. So, it’s fair to assume that they continue to do so.

I hope that helps!

Hi VeritasKarishma

I understand the logic but while trying to understand the meaning of A , I have several confusing points:

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.

Meaning what I understand:
large garbage contains large quantity of paper and cardboard. When large quantity then it burns hot enough. This hot burning actually destroys the dioxins. Here destroying means something that can not be burnt or not release dioxins. It means if any quantity is reduced then it may not destroy all dioxin and hence gases maybe released in atmosphere more than gases would have been without reduction of quantity.


Confusing points:
1. Is burning also not destroyed? IN practical sense, burning is a type of destruction.
2. dioxins to be destroyed (phrase it contains just modifies dioxins. It doesn't contain to be destroyed. I mean I read it as : xx ...enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
3. How can we say reduce quantity is not large enough. I mean how can we determine the definition of large enough and if something is reduced, maybe it is still large enough to easily burn hot enough.
4. In practical sense, It seems strange that reducing garbage is actually not useful. I mean its not a practical solution. Our target must be to reduce garbage to save environment . It maybe possible that after reducing a bit more garbage , the environment would be safer more than it was while burning large quantity. ( small quantity of dioxins ( even all gas is released - no dioxin destroyed) still lower than dioxins (that are not complete burnt ) release in air

Kindly give your suggestions.

We are told that dioxins are toxic chemicals. Destruction of dioxins means the chemicals break down into simpler components and don't remain dioxins anymore. That is all we care about in our argument. The scope of our argument is limited to dioxin pollution.

So the argument tells us that household garbage releases dioxin in air upon burning. Since paper and cardboard has dioxin in it too, if we reduce the amount of paper and cardboard in household garbage, it should reduce total dioxin released.

But (A) tells us that paper and cardboard burning leads to temperature of fire going v high and hence a part of dioxin is destroyed. But if paper and cardboard amount is reduced in the garbage, the fire temperature will not be that high such that a part of dioxin will not get destroyed.
Now whether this part destroyed earlier was big enough or not, doesn't matter. We are trying to question the conclusion and this does make us question it. It makes us doubt that dioxin pollution will reduce.

This a CE( cause effect ) question( Prethinking --> Pattern found! ) argument states that if regulation(R) is implemented than Dioxions(D) levels would go down. Now there are 5 ways to weaken this(or any) causal reasoning ( Approach ) :

1. Finding another cause(apart from R) for the same effect(D) : Let's say people are going to be more educated about the harmfull effects of dioxions and they would reduce the consumptions of the materials(M) producing D in the first place OR trees will increase their efficiency and help us solve this 95% hard problem.
2. Cause happens but effect doesn't happens : Let's say people will illegally burn M or Let's say someone will pay them to burn M (hypothetical situation but it can still happen). D can either ↑ or it can be ~.
3. Effects happens but cause doesn't happens : let's say regulation is not implemented in majority of areas( say 99 % of areas ), but still D ↓.
4. Reverse of CE( D--> R) : Harder to imagine that this actions would also reduce the strength of the causality.
5. Weaken data used for developing this causal relationship : What and where is that data? " burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals" . If this evidence is weakened then we could weaken CE ( R --> D)

Which should be the answer ? A

Seriously recommend powerprep CR Bible. It is a Bible. I thought they ( ambiguous pronoun) were exaggerating.