flaw in reasoning

Situation : It is claimed that the nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby and hence nuclear waste dumping could be located near sites in areas of dense population.
But there is a policy in place which requires dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions.

Argument : From the policy for dumping nuclear waste it is clear that there is some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.

Assumption : there is no factor other than safety which governs the policies made for the dumping of nuclear wasts.

(C) catches this miss and provides an alternative explanation for the policy ...
Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.

IMO C

gmatnmein2010 wrote: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.

I would stake on C.

Context says that dumping of waste poses no threat to people. Now, the last line says that dumping of waste does not poses threat(because there is a policy that nuclear wastes should be dumped in sparsely populated area). Hence there is still a chance that nuclear waste would be treat to people if dumped in densely populated areas.

We have to attack this argument an prove it wrong i.e we have to prove that nuclear waste will poses no threat even if it is dumped in densely populated areas. Only C does that.

A- it means that the dumping of waste in sparsely populated will popes no threat to them...this is not the argument here. Hence ruled out

B- fewer people will be harmed in Sparsely populated area and more in densely populate....supports the argument
Hence ruled out

C- attacks argument by saying that it poses more harmful effects in densely populated area. Correct.

D, E -irrelevant to argument under discussion.

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?

We can weaken the argument if only we can find some other reason for dumping nuclear waste in sparsely populated region. Lets see which one does that for us :

(A) Evaluation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where the population is small.
Incorrect : Does nothing to weaken the conclusion. Eliminated.

(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.
Incorrect : This does not helps us to weaken the conclusion.

(C) Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas.
Correct : This provides another reason (bureaucratic and economic problems) for dumping waste in sparsely populated areas.

(D) There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas of dense population.
Incorrect : Out of scope

(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.
Incorrect : Strengthens the conclusion.

I agree with you guys. I also think that the right answer is C