GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Increased use of incineration is sometimes ad...
Start Learning for Free
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
- a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
- b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
- c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
- d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
- e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to ...
The argument is based on the premise that opponents of incineration claim it is unsafe due to incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents at existing incinerators. The conclusion is that if the use of incineration increases without additional preventive measures, such releases will become more prevalent. We are asked to find the option that weakens this argument the most.
Let's evaluate each answer choice:
(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the leaks were caused by a lack of proper training rather than inherent flaws in the incineration process. If the staff had received adequate training, the incidents of leaks might have been prevented, indicating that incineration itself may not be the problem. Therefore, this answer choice weakens the argument.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the leaks were caused by a lack of proper training rather than inherent flaws in the incineration process. If the staff had received adequate training, the incidents of leaks might have been prevented, indicating that incineration itself may not be the problem. Therefore, this answer choice weakens the argument.
(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It introduces a comparison with chemical neutralization processes, but the argument focuses on incineration. Therefore, this option does not significantly weaken the argument.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It introduces a comparison with chemical neutralization processes, but the argument focuses on incineration. Therefore, this option does not significantly weaken the argument.
(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
This option is irrelevant to the argument's concern about the safety of incineration and the potential increase in leaks. It only addresses the capacity of existing incinerators, without providing any information about safety measures or preventive measures in new incinerators.
This option is irrelevant to the argument's concern about the safety of incineration and the potential increase in leaks. It only addresses the capacity of existing incinerators, without providing any information about safety measures or preventive measures in new incinerators.
(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the frequency of incidents at newly built incinerators is comparable to that of older incinerators. If the frequency is the same, it implies that there is no significant increase in incidents despite the lack of additional preventive measures in the new incinerators. Therefore, this option weakens the argument.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the frequency of incidents at newly built incinerators is comparable to that of older incinerators. If the frequency is the same, it implies that there is no significant increase in incidents despite the lack of additional preventive measures in the new incinerators. Therefore, this option weakens the argument.
(E) In only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It focuses on the extent of the releases and whether they extended outside the property. However, this information does not provide a strong weakening effect on the argument.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It focuses on the extent of the releases and whether they extended outside the property. However, this information does not provide a strong weakening effect on the argument.
In summary, options (A) and (D) both weaken the argument, but option (A) weakens it more directly by suggesting that the leaks were caused by inadequate training rather than inherent flaws in incineration. Therefore, the correct answer is (A).
Most Upvoted Answer
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to ...
The argument is based on the premise that opponents of incineration claim it is unsafe due to incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents at existing incinerators. The conclusion is that if the use of incineration increases without additional preventive measures, such releases will become more prevalent. We are asked to find the option that weakens this argument the most.
Let's evaluate each answer choice:
(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the leaks were caused by a lack of proper training rather than inherent flaws in the incineration process. If the staff had received adequate training, the incidents of leaks might have been prevented, indicating that incineration itself may not be the problem. Therefore, this answer choice weakens the argument.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the leaks were caused by a lack of proper training rather than inherent flaws in the incineration process. If the staff had received adequate training, the incidents of leaks might have been prevented, indicating that incineration itself may not be the problem. Therefore, this answer choice weakens the argument.
(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It introduces a comparison with chemical neutralization processes, but the argument focuses on incineration. Therefore, this option does not significantly weaken the argument.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It introduces a comparison with chemical neutralization processes, but the argument focuses on incineration. Therefore, this option does not significantly weaken the argument.
(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.
This option is irrelevant to the argument's concern about the safety of incineration and the potential increase in leaks. It only addresses the capacity of existing incinerators, without providing any information about safety measures or preventive measures in new incinerators.
This option is irrelevant to the argument's concern about the safety of incineration and the potential increase in leaks. It only addresses the capacity of existing incinerators, without providing any information about safety measures or preventive measures in new incinerators.
(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the frequency of incidents at newly built incinerators is comparable to that of older incinerators. If the frequency is the same, it implies that there is no significant increase in incidents despite the lack of additional preventive measures in the new incinerators. Therefore, this option weakens the argument.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the frequency of incidents at newly built incinerators is comparable to that of older incinerators. If the frequency is the same, it implies that there is no significant increase in incidents despite the lack of additional preventive measures in the new incinerators. Therefore, this option weakens the argument.
(E) In only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It focuses on the extent of the releases and whether they extended outside the property. However, this information does not provide a strong weakening effect on the argument.
This option does not directly address the argument's concern about the prevalence of leaks or the lack of preventive measures in new incinerators. It focuses on the extent of the releases and whether they extended outside the property. However, this information does not provide a strong weakening effect on the argument.
In summary, options (A) and (D) both weaken the argument, but option (A) weakens it more directly by suggesting that the leaks were caused by inadequate training rather than inherent flaws in incineration. Therefore, the correct answer is (A).
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Top Courses for GMATView all
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?a)At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.b)Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.c)The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.d)The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.e)ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup