GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 21 May 2018, 21:08

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 30 May 2015
Posts: 48
WE: Analyst (Internet and New Media)
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2015, 12:10
But how does it prove trains are not at risk? I still don't understand this reasoning
Anupama

Hi Anupma,

This is how broke down the argument:

Question Type : Weakener

Premise 1 : Critics -> N cargo transport = undue risk
Premise 2 : Ex: YP allows trucks with >80k lbs to transport N waste & no incidents have occ
Conclusion : policymakers should allow trucks to transport N waste

Goal : A new piece of evidence to prove that trucks should not be allowed to transport N waste.

We are only concerned about proving trucks are not safe to transport N waste; whether other means are safe to transport or not is not the ask of the question.

Let's wait for the OA.

Rgds,
Dhruva
Intern
Status: Do or Die!!
Joined: 29 Jul 2013
Posts: 21
Location: India
Concentration: Technology
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 3.86
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2015, 12:17
IMO B.
Since there were no incidents reported for Yardow, this is possible if the regulatory agency that gave report of Yardow was a newly assigned one for Yardow and the agency didn't had any complaints. So this weakens the conclusion that since Yardow has been doing it safely, it is safe to use trucks. Hence B.

waiting for OA
Intern
Joined: 04 Nov 2013
Posts: 42
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 4
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2015, 09:05
Hmmmm... Interesting question. I can see multiple viewpoints. Hope I'm right.
_________________

Please kudos if you found this post helpful. I am trying to unlock the tests

Joined: 13 Jan 2015
Posts: 112
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Other, General Management
Schools: LBS '19 (WL)
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2015, 10:23
I went with D here,
Reason is that we do not know the state of the roads in other prefrefectures, since the good safety record in Y might be due to the specific roads...

Cant wait for the response, and this is a smacking question
Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2015
Posts: 84
Location: United States
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2015, 07:22
Identifying any special conditions in which Yardow Prefecture transports the nuclear waste provide scope for weakening the argument
Manager
Joined: 03 Oct 2014
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2015, 07:56
Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.

Concentrate on conclusion - clearly stated that "considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary".

Now to weaken it we need something that breaks the link, that tells us that the case given cannot be generalised to all the trucks.

Go to option D - Clear Winner.
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 243
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2015, 22:15
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.

Official Explanation
Type: Weaken
Boil It Down: Transporting nuke waste safe in Yardow -> Should be allowed in general
Missing Information: Yardow is a relevant example
Goal: We need to find an option that shows there is something than usual about Yardow such that it would be rendered an irrelevant example.

Nobody’s talking about transporting nuclear waste by train so a discussion about the logistics involved in train transport of nuclear waste is entirely irrelevant. This is a classic out of focus option. It’s just not clear at all how this information relates in any way to the claim that trucks should be allowed to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. For all we know, transporting this waste by train is even more dangerous than it is by truck.

We have no way to know whether transferring reporting duties would’ve affected the results. It would be speculative at best to presume that’s the case. For all we know, the standards and execution quality remained exactly the same despite the transfer of reporting duties to a different regulatory agency.

This is the statistical runner-up option. At first glance option C appears to show that something is unusual about Yardow; however, the license requirement could be standard across the entire nation. There’s no way to know that there’s anything that's usual about this licensing requirement. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Therefore it’s not clear whether C would point out a relative difference in Yardow Prefecture’s requirements, and this option does not clearly weaken. Compare that to option D, which points to an array of factors that make Yardow special, and therefore likely an unfair example to use in the case to allow truck borne nuclear waste.

Yes! This is the correct option because it reveals that something is definitely specific about Yardow’s restrictions. The roads in the Yardow example are ONLY travelled on by vehicles in excess of 80,000 pounds, and by specially licensed drivers. Taking every other vehicle off the road and having these trucks operated by specially licensed drivers on these exclusive roads dramatically reduces the risk of an incident happening. If we were to refer to the Yardow case to justify truck driven nuclear power plant waste in general, then we’d be relying on an unrealistic, unrepresentative set of circumstances, thus dramatically weakening the argument to allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary.

This option also gets some interest; however, there’s no way to assume that for nuclear waste transport this information is even relevant. The option just states what is typically the case. With nuclear waste, how would we know that this information is even relevant to us? Would two trucks or just one truck be used? We have no idea. Furthermore, it’s unclear how the use of one truck or two trucks would even impact the safety record. In other words there’s just no way to know the relevance of option E.

Bigger GMAT Picture: If you find yourself vacillating between two options, scour the differences with an emphasis on WHAT's WRONG. Otherwise, it can be all too tempting to rationalize an incorrect option that's well-disguised.
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2014
Posts: 7
Schools: ISB '17, NUS '18
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2015, 06:31
Got it right, even though entered late in this competition. But, a very good question. This competition is a great way to prepare within stipulated time
Intern
Status: Crushing with a 780
Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Posts: 19
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2015, 08:30
I was debating between D&E and ultimately chose E...
Reading again, I noticed that D includes E.
Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Posts: 11
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2015, 23:28
Explanation:

The question asked to weaken the argument of claiming nuclear waste transport is safe. Option D represents the logical way to refute the argument by stating that it is restricted to trucks to do so.
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 317
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2015, 12:36
Simply put , the argument mentions a specific example to support a general conclusion.

Can we say that the example quoted is representative?

D states that the example stated is very unique and not representative enough to derive a general conclusion.

_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Intern
Joined: 03 Nov 2015
Posts: 1
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2015, 22:23

I am clear that the answer relies on the option that: weakens the study made in Yardow.

You are choosing option "D" because you say that 'drivers need a special drivers license'...but maybe in other cities the drivers also need that license; therefore, it is a assumption that it is out of scope.

Please, help me clarify why should option D be correct under an assumption about the uniqness of the drivers license.

If assume that the drivers in all cities require that special drivers license, then it would valid option E.

Note: my pick was between D and E... I chose E.

Thank you
Current Student
Status: Persevere
Joined: 09 Jan 2016
Posts: 122
Location: Hong Kong
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.52
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2016, 07:58
souvik101990 Can you provide the official explanation? Though, I answered D, I took considerable amount of time eliminating C. I would like to know that I eliminated C for the right reasons.
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 243
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 12:44
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
Hi nalinnair,

Here's the question again, and the official explanation for your convenience, and per your question, take a look at the analysis for option C. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to let me know.

Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.

Official Explanation
Type: Weaken
Boil It Down: Transporting nuke waste safe in Yardow -> Should be allowed in general
Missing Information: Yardow is a relevant example
Goal: We need to find an option that shows there is something than usual about Yardow such that it would be rendered an irrelevant example.

Nobody’s talking about transporting nuclear waste by train so a discussion about the logistics involved in train transport of nuclear waste is entirely irrelevant. This is a classic out of focus option. It’s just not clear at all how this information relates in any way to the claim that trucks should be allowed to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. For all we know, transporting this waste by train is even more dangerous than it is by truck.

We have no way to know whether transferring reporting duties would’ve affected the results. It would be speculative at best to presume that’s the case. For all we know, the standards and execution quality remained exactly the same despite the transfer of reporting duties to a different regulatory agency.

This is the statistical runner-up option. At first glance option C appears to show that something is unusual about Yardow; however, the license requirement could be standard across the entire nation. There’s no way to know that there’s anything that's usual about this licensing requirement. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Therefore it’s not clear whether C would point out a relative difference in Yardow Prefecture’s requirements, and this option does not clearly weaken. Compare that to option D, which points to an array of factors that make Yardow special, and therefore likely an unfair example to use in the case to allow truck borne nuclear waste.

Yes! This is the correct option because it reveals that something is definitely specific about Yardow’s restrictions. The roads in the Yardow example are ONLY travelled on by vehicles in excess of 80,000 pounds, and by specially licensed drivers. Taking every other vehicle off the road and having these trucks operated by specially licensed drivers on these exclusive roads dramatically reduces the risk of an incident happening. If we were to refer to the Yardow case to justify truck driven nuclear power plant waste in general, then we’d be relying on an unrealistic, unrepresentative set of circumstances, thus dramatically weakening the argument to allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary.

This option also gets some interest; however, there’s no way to assume that for nuclear waste transport this information is even relevant. The option just states what is typically the case. With nuclear waste, how would we know that this information is even relevant to us? Would two trucks or just one truck be used? We have no idea. Furthermore, it’s unclear how the use of one truck or two trucks would even impact the safety record. In other words there’s just no way to know the relevance of option E.

Bigger GMAT Picture: If you find yourself vacillating between two options, scour the differences with an emphasis on WHAT's WRONG. Otherwise, it can be all too tempting to rationalize an incorrect option that's well-disguised.[/quote]
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2015
Posts: 31
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
WE: Brand Management (Manufacturing)
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 16:34
1
KUDOS
Critics of the use of trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste are mistaken in claiming that transportation of such cargo poses an undue risk over that of other transportation methods. For example, Yardow Prefecture allows trucks with a typical gross weight greater than 80,000 pounds to transport nuclear waste and despite the significant number of such journeys, no incidents or handling safety violations have been recorded. It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers
should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?

conclusions: Critics claim use of trucks is not safe. They are not correct or mistaken.
weaken pre-thinking: support critics argument.

A. Transporting nuclear power plant waste by train does not necessarily require trucks to deliver the nuclear waste to a train’s loading depot.(No way this supports critics arg instead introduces unnecessary info reg trains)

B. The reporting of traffic incidents in Yardow Prefecture was recently transferred to a different regulatory agency.
(Completely out of scope-recent shift should not affect the info)

C. Truck drivers in Yardow Prefecture are required to obtain a specific class of license to drive a truck if the vehicle’s gross weight is greater than 80,000 pounds.(Does not help in any way since it is not important to what license they possess.)

D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.
(This weakens critics argument since roads are restricted to only trucks possibility of accidents is less.)

E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load.(This explains that normally trucks shud carry around 60k but they are carrying more than 80k which is dangerous. Therefore may be critics are right weakening the argument.)
_________________

Please award kudos if you like my explanation.
Thanks

Current Student
Status: Persevere
Joined: 09 Jan 2016
Posts: 122
Location: Hong Kong
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.52
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2016, 04:29
EMPOWERgmatMax Thank you.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1909
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jun 2017, 01:45
A,B,C are out of scope.
D is much better than E because E just states a fact and that fact can be interpreted in either positive or negative way, so no one can be sure if E strengthen the argument.
Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 9
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2017, 08:45
Option A cites disposal by train, which the critics consider better than trucks. (based on 1 st sentence) . Option d seems to be strengthening the claim supporting disposal by roads highlighting the safety measures taken by yardow prefecture. Kindly explain why it is D and not A.
Manager
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 59
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2017, 08:15
Hi chetan2u,

my reasoning is inline with Nevernevergiveup 's that normally trucks shud carry around 60k but they are carrying more than 80k which is dangerous. Therefore may be critics are right weakening the argument

But OA is not E.

i fail to understand why E is wrong.

Requesting you to clarify my understanding.

Raju
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5780
Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2017, 09:14
gvvsnraju@1 wrote:
Hi chetan2u,

my reasoning is inline with Nevernevergiveup 's that normally trucks shud carry around 60k but they are carrying more than 80k which is dangerous. Therefore may be critics are right weakening the argument

But OA is not E.

i fail to understand why E is wrong.

Requesting you to clarify my understanding.

Raju

Hi..

first lets see what are we to weaken..
Quote:
It is clear that considering Yardow’s proven safety record, policy­makers should disregard the critics' concerns and allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary

so we have to weaken the safety records of Yardow to prove that the trucks are not the safest bet..

E is
E. Normal gross truck loads are 60,000 pounds, and for any load greater than 80,000 pounds, two trucks are typically used to transport that load

It tells us that typically >80000 loads are divided into two parts.
Now reasons why it should NOT be the answer..
1) The trucks of Y are taking >80000 and have a PROVEN safety record, so the Q of dividing into two parts does not effect the SAFETY records of Y company and thus does not effect the argument - MAIN reason
2) Also it talks of typical truck load but the vehicles used for transporting may be different. It never mentions they are the SAME.
3) Even if for a moment we take it as same, it never specifies it is dangerous. We are assuming so. it may be just as a rule or for proper packing.
4) And finally even if we take it as dangerous, the Q is NOT about typical trucks, it is about the POINT (1) above- Safety record of Y, which have been sited as the reason for using trucks.

Now what does D do.
D. The roads used for nuclear waste transport in Yardow Prefecture are restricted to trucks driven by drivers with a certain class of license designated for gross loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, which is over 20,000 pounds greater than the typical gross load.

It tells us that reason for SAFETY records is that there are different infrastructure in Y for these roads, which may not be available here.
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

GMAT online Tutor

Re: RAGCT 2015 Day 2: Critics of the use of trucks to transport   [#permalink] 05 Sep 2017, 09:14

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 40 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by