Critical Reasoning

It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population. But the policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates, at the very least, some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.

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

A. Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.

B. In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

D. There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.

E. Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public.

No OA given. I was with E. Can someone please explain the question stem?

Let's see if I can break down the question stem .

The argument states that many claim dumping nuclear waste does not threaten those living nearby. The argument, however, believes that dumping nuclear waste must pose some threat, otherwise there would not be a policy of dumping only in sparsely populated areas.

To weaken this argument we should look for some other reason as to why the policy dictates that nuclear dumping should only happen in sparsely populated areas.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

This is the answer because it gives us a reason why dumping happens in sparsely populated areas: its cheaper (economic) and easier to do so (fewer bureaucratic problems).

(A) and (B) both mention an accident. However, many claim that nuclear dumping poses no threat, so they do not take into consideration what would happen in the event of an accident.

(E) is incorrect because it is consistent with the argument: there must be something harmful about nuclear dumps so it is best they are in sparsely populated areas.

chris@magoosh wrote:Let's see if I can break down the question stem .

The argument states that many claim dumping nuclear waste does not threaten those living nearby. The argument, however, believes that dumping nuclear waste must pose some threat, otherwise there would not be a policy of dumping only in sparsely populated areas.

To weaken this argument we should look for some other reason as to why the policy dictates that nuclear dumping should only happen in sparsely populated areas.

C. Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

This is the answer because it gives us a reason why dumping happens in sparsely populated areas: its cheaper (economic) and easier to do so (fewer bureaucratic problems).

(A) and (B) both mention an accident. However, many claim that nuclear dumping poses no threat, so they do not take into consideration what would happen in the event of an accident.

(E) is incorrect because it is consistent with the argument: there must be something harmful about nuclear dumps so it is best they are in sparsely populated areas.

Thanks Chris for your clear explanation on (A), (B) and (E), especially the restated arguement.
Could you please share how you could get the arguement in such a concise way ?