dumping ordiance

So the argument basically says that if people know that what causes smith's disease, the city does not need to dumb the waste outside the city. So

d. the proposed education program would have been available to all country residents

Clear case of (C).

If roads serve multiple purposes whereas education serves only one purpose, then it is OK to divert the fund to maintenance of roads and argument falls apart.

This country' current dumping ordinance, which requires that all refuse be hauled at least ten miles outside the city limits for dumping, should be repealed in the interest of public health. The purpose of the ordinance in the first place was to prevent the spread of Smith's Disease, which has been found to be most prevalent in regions near outdoor dumps. But the country funds used to maintain the roads to the dumping sites have been diverted from a proposed countrywide education program for Smith's Disease awareness, which would have been more effective than the dumping ordinance in preventing the disease.

Which of the following, if true, would best support the dissertation that the dumping ordinance should be repealed?

a. the geographic area within the city limits is more heavily populated than the area outside the city limits

b. treating smith's disease is more expensive on average than preventing it in the first place

c the roads to the dumping sites are of no practical use other than for transport between the city limits and the dumping sites

d. the proposed education program would have been available to all country residents

e. the most effective means of preventing smith's disease is an expensive vaccine that is not readily available


Conclusion: should be repealed... as
purpose was to prevent which has been prevalent near outdoor dumps.....


IMO A

I guess it's A