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

 It is currently 16 Jan 2019, 00:09

### 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 January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### The winning strategy for a high GRE score

January 17, 2019

January 17, 2019

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

January 19, 2019

January 19, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

# V31-07

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4359
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2018, 07:45
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (00:09) correct 67% (02:34) wrong based on 6 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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, policy-makers 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.

_________________
Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4359
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2018, 07:45
Official Solution:

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, policy-makers 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.

Type: Weaken

Boil It Down: Transporting nuke waste safe in Yardow -> Should be allowed in general

Missing Information: Yardow is a relevant example to the nation as a whole

Goal: We need to find an option that shows there is something than usual about Yardow such that it would be rendered in a relevant example.

A. 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.

B. 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 remained exactly the same despite the transfer of reporting duties to a different regulatory agency.

C. 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 than usual about this licensing requirement. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Therefore it's not clear whether see 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 trick borne nuclear waste.

D. 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 applying an unrealistic, unrepresentative set of circumstances, thus dramatically weakenening the argument that allow trucks to transport nuclear power plant waste as necessary.

E. 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.

_________________
Re V31-07 &nbs [#permalink] 23 Apr 2018, 07:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# V31-07

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel

 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®.