OG Increased Use of Incineration Q

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 394
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:59 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:5 members

OG Increased Use of Incineration Q

by AbeNeedsAnswers » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:29 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

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

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.

A

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:56 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

AbeNeedsAnswers wrote:Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

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

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.

A
Conclusion: leaks will become more prevalent if use of incineration increases
Premise: Two existing incinerators experienced many leaks and designs for new incinerators include no design improvements to prevent leaks.

The big assumption here is that the design of the incinerators was the problem. What if they had incompetent employees? If that's the case, then the fact that the new incinerators will have the same design is no longer problematic, and we can't necessarily conclude that leaks will increase. Best captured in A
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course