In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of

[BTGmoderatorDC]

In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging-specifically, paper and cardboard packaging-for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.

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

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.

OA A

Source: Official Guide

[deloitte247]

Premise: In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it, and thus, this burning releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins.
Conclusion: Since the packaging materials for products sold in the area, specifically paper and cardboard packaging contain dioxin, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.

Option A - Correct:
This option weakens the argument the most because burning household garbage releases dioxins and one of the results of reducing packaging materials (paper and cardboard packaging) will lead to the reduction of dioxin pollution as this is a way dioxin pollution can be subdued.

Option B - Incorrect:
Neither do we know about the weight of packaging materials of household garbage nor the proportion of its volume. This claim is, therefore, baseless.

Option C - Incorrect:
No information was given about the per-capital sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging. Hence, we can't know if the per-capital sales are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.

Option D - Incorrect:
The new conservation regulations require a major reduction in packaging, specifically paper and cardboard packaging for products sold in the area, and not the cut down on consumption of paper products.

Option E - Incorrect:
This option strengthens the argument rather than weakens it because no health problems caused by dioxins was stated in the passage.