Lead water

[beat_gmat_09]

Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses all over the city of Redmond. Because of health concerns related to lead, specially trained workers are required to repair the water main pipes, and without repairs, the water main pipes would eventually cease to deliver water effectively. Therefore, taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

A) When water main pipes cease to function effectively, they can be left in place without raising health concerns.
B) Although lead water main pipes are a necessary part of the delivery of water in Redmond, some residents also obtain a portion of their water from wells.
C) In response to public demands, the Redmond city council has cut funding for the training of repair workers and increased spending on the city's mass transit system.
D) Repair of water main pipes requires workers to spend long periods of time underground, which increases the expense of training these workers.
E) The development of a safe and durable material for pipes has made repairing lead water main pipes more costly and less practical than replacing them.

OA : Later
Source : Knewton

[gmat1011]

I'd say its E. If it is cheaper and more practical to replace then no why should tax payers continue to fund training for repairs? They'd rather fund the replacement.

C is the other one which mentions training. But a mere cut in training funds by the govt doesn't mean the taxpayers should just stop funding - they'd just fund the reduced amount for training but still continue to fund.

[fitzgerald23]

Lets break down what the passage tells us.

1. Lead pipes are needed for water in Redmond
2. Workers have to repair the pipes because of health concerns
3. Without repair the pipes would not function
4. Taxpayers have to pay if they want safe water delivery


A) Incorrect. While this tells us that it will still be safe to not repair the pipes it does not solve the issue of getting water to the town (remember #3 says the pipe will not function)

B) Incorrect. While this would mean some folks will still get water, most will be without water if they stop training the repair workers (#1 tells us how most everyone needs the pipes)

C) Incorrect. This has nothing to do with the argument. The city council cutting funding is another matter entirely and has nothing to do with the argument that if the town wants good water they need repairmen.

D) Incorrect. This just presents reason as to why the costs are high, not a reson why the taxpayers will still be required to foot the bill.

E) Correct. This tells us that there is another and cheaper option besides training repairmen to fix the pipes. Instead of training repairmen the town could save money by replacing the lead pipes with new system that is safe and does not require repair. If this is true it seriously weakens the argument that taxpayers must pay to train workers to repair pipes. Go back to #1 and remember the argument is based on the fact that lead pipes are required for water and that #2 says they must be repaired to work. Clearly that is not the case anymore. Lead is not required and the new materials will not require repair. These workers are not needed based on this information.

[arora007]

E should be the obvious choice.... after all this is the only choice which explains the economics about which the taxpayers are concerned!