chondro48 wrote:
People who object to the proposed hazardous waste storage site by appealing to extremely implausible scenarios in which the site fails to contain the waste safely are overlooking the significant risks associated with delays in moving the waste from its present unsafe location. If we wait to remove the waste until we find a site certain to contain it safely, the waste will remain in its current location for many years, since it is currently impossible to guarantee that any site can meet that criterion. Yet keeping the waste at the current location for that long clearly poses unacceptable risks.
The statement above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
A) The waste should never have been stored in its current location.
B) The waste should be placed in the most secure location that can ever be found.
C) Moving the waste to the proposed site would reduce the threat posed by the waste.
D) Whenever waste must be moved, one should limit the amount of time allotted to locating alternative waste storage sites
E) any sites to which the waste could be moved will be safer than its present site.
+1 kudo or bookmark if you like the question
Objection by few to proposed waste site on safety grounds ---->Would lead to---->
Delay in finding new site -------> Leads to a Possibility--->
No certainty of finding that ideal place .Finally
Yet keeping the waste at the current location for that long clearly poses unacceptable risks.Let us see which choice is supported by above argument..The statement above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
A) The waste should never have been stored in its current location.
It is nowhere mentioned that WHY the waste was stored there. There may be very valid reason why it was shifted there firstB) The waste should be placed in the most secure location that can ever be found.
On the contrary, the argument says that we should NOT wait for the most secured place. A fine balance is required between RISKS vs TIMEC) Moving the waste to the proposed site would reduce the threat posed by the waste.
The lines --Yet keeping the waste at the current location for that long clearly poses unacceptable risks.-- clearly conveys that shifting is a better idea and reduces the risks ..Correct
D) Whenever waste must be moved, one should limit the amount of time allotted to locating alternative waste storage sites
The argument never talks of limiting the TIME. It merely says that finding the perfect location may take plenty of time, so the waste can be shifted to some better location. It may well be possible that it is further shifted whenever THAT perfect location is found. E) any sites to which the waste could be moved will be safer than its present site.
Too extreme. We cant say ANY site , but yes we know that the proposed site is saferC
_________________