Q20 - Environmentalist: Discarding old appliances

[noah]

20. (B)
Question type: Inference
This question begins with a list of the reasons it can be dangerous to discard old appliances. If a landfill is properly managed, these dangers become moot, though if the landfill operates improperly groundwater can become contaminated and other, unspecified problems may occur. To add to this environmental misery, burning trash (a broader category than old appliances), creates floating ash that is poisoned by heavy metal. This answer asks us which of a list of possible inferences is most strongly supported by these statements, and (B) closely relates to what’s known. If trash, which includes old appliances, will poison the air with heavy metal-laced ash, then we know for sure that appliances containing heavy metals _ a specific sub-category of trash _ will result in the same environmental problem.

These problems, like many others, are often best approached by looking to eliminate the wrong answers. (A) is out of scope.
(C) is not specifically stated (just because chloroforms are dangerous doesn’t mean they are harmful to the atmosphere)
(D) is out of scope.
(E) is unsupported since properly-run landfills can handle your old fridge just fine!

[edited for correctness - thanks mrudula for the good question!]

[mrudula_2005]

[b]20.

(C) is not specifically stated (just because chloroforms are dangerous doesn’t mean they are harmful), and

what do you mean? it seemed to me that in this context if something is dangerous it is safe to say it is harmful to the atmosphere

[noah]

[b]20.

(C) is not specifically stated (just because chloroforms are dangerous doesn’t mean they are harmful), and

what do you mean? it seemed to me that in this context if something is dangerous it is safe to say it is harmful to the atmosphere

Good point. To dig deeper: just because it contains something that is dangerous to the environment doesn't mean that it's dangerous to the atmosphere. Perhaps this is something that is dangerous to the groundwater.

Make sense?

[mrudula_2005]

[b]20.

(C) is not specifically stated (just because chloroforms are dangerous doesn’t mean they are harmful), and

what do you mean? it seemed to me that in this context if something is dangerous it is safe to say it is harmful to the atmosphere

Good point. To dig deeper: just because it contains something that is dangerous to the environment doesn't mean that it's dangerous to the atmosphere. Perhaps this is something that is dangerous to the groundwater.

Make sense?

aha! good call. thanks a lot!

[funner567]

[b]20.

(C) is not specifically stated (just because chloroforms are dangerous doesn’t mean they are harmful), and

what do you mean? it seemed to me that in this context if something is dangerous it is safe to say it is harmful to the atmosphere

In the stimulus it specifically states that "when landfills are operated properly, SUCH MATERIALS (i.e appliances causing CFCs) pose no threat." then it goes onto to say "however, when landfills are not operated properly, lead and mercury from THEM (i.e appliances causing cfc's) contaminate groundwater."

No where does it state that they alter the atmosphere in any sense but rather the groundwater and whatever is attributed to that. On the other hand when trash is incinerated that alters the atmosphere.

So "C" could be true, but in no way is it supported by our stimulus.

[timmydoeslsat]

I felt that this was one of the toughest questions of the section.

I felt that B is not strongly supported at all.

The environmentalist is simply stating facts of what happens and never tips his/her hand in which way these things should be done.

I say this because to discard appliances to the landfill can be a risky proposition. However, we do not know how dangerous contamination is in regard to landfills not being operated properly compared to the damage that incineration does.

Perhaps it is the case that the landfill contamination is so much worse than the incineration contamination, that it is better to simply pollute the air rather than risk total devastation of what may happen with landfills not being ran properly.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The environmentalist is simply stating facts of what happens and never tips his/her hand in which way these things should be done.

I say this because to discard appliances to the landfill can be a risky proposition. However, we do not know how dangerous contamination is in regard to landfills not being operated properly compared to the damage that incineration does.

Perhaps it is the case that the landfill contamination is so much worse than the incineration contamination, that it is better to simply pollute the air rather than risk total devastation of what may happen with landfills not being ran properly.

Hey Timmy! You make a good point, and I don't disagree with anything you say, but you're not looking at the complete picture, which is skewing your perspective.

Is there necessarily going to be contamination if appliances with heavy metals end up in landfills? Not necessarily. If the landfills are operated properly, we're fine. If the landfills are not operated properly, then yes, we have a problem.

However, if the appliances with heavy metals end up in incineration plants, then we always have a problem.

So... the question is, which is better: landfills or incineration plants? If you have to choose between assured pollution in an incineration plant and pollution that you could avoid by operating the landfills properly, it's supported that you should choose to discard these appliances with heavy metals in landfills.

What do you think, you agree? I know we don't know the extent of the problem in either direction, but since it doesn't say and they both sound bad, let's focus on the certainty of the pollution rather than the degree of the pollution. We just don't have the ability to assess that.

Make sense?

[timmydoeslsat]

I can dig it Matt!

[mimimimi]

Though I reached (B) quickly through POE, this problem was difficult for me. Are we supposed to assume that we SHOULD NOT "let heavy metal poison the ash and escape into the air"? By now I am so used to LSAT logic that it was hard for me to find this kind of support for (B).

[asafezrati]

Though I reached (B) quickly through POE, this problem was difficult for me. Are we supposed to assume that we SHOULD NOT "let heavy metal poison the ash and escape into the air"? By now I am so used to LSAT logic that it was hard for me to find this kind of support for (B).

This should/shouldn't thing bugged me also, but this is a "most" question, so yeah it's close enough. Incinerating appliances containing heavy metals -> dangerous -(assumption)-> shouldn't be done.

It's not airtight, but this question type doesn't require the answer to be airtight. This feature is also discussed above by timmydoeslsat and noah, a bit differently.

I've got a little question regarding answer choice C: If the answer choice said "HEAVY METALS are harmful to the atmosphere" - would we be able to draw a line between "air" and "atmosphere, and conclude that this is a correct answer?

Thanks

[JeremyK460]

Hey, Guys! First time posting. Go easy on me!

This is how I eliminated answer choice C...

My main gripe with answer choice C is that it reads to me like it's saying 'chlorofluorocarbons, itself, are harmful to the atmosphere' ...

I thought to myself: What do I know about chlorofluorocarbons? What do the statements tell me? The only thing I know specifically about chlorofluorocarbons is that they 'contain heavy metals like lead and mercury'.

That's really it. In terms of 'harmful' or 'danger', sure, chlorofluorocarbons are definitely related, but I thought those terms are more closely tied to the process of discarding trash...

‘discarding old appliances can be dangerous’...

‘when landfills are not operated properly, the heavy metals do some dangerous stuff (contaminate groundwater)’

'when trash is incinerated, heavy metals poison the ash and escape into the air'

So when it comes to what's harmful, it was hard for me to select this answer without having chlorofluorocarbons coupled with the process of discarding trash, or something else synonymous to it.

Here's an analogy I thought up. Let me know if it's bad!

Oil may not necessarily be harmful to the environment, but the oil and gas production process is the main culprit (oil spills, pollution from all the facilities/plants, dangerous emissions, etc.). The trash process in which chlorofluorocarbons goes through may be the main culprit.

I mean chlorofluorocarbons could be harmful to the air/atmosphere, but (maybe I’m missing something) I feel like there’s more useful information in the stimulus to support answer B than there is to support that chlorofluorocarbons is harmful.

[smiller]

I've got a little question regarding answer choice C: If the answer choice said "HEAVY METALS are harmful to the atmosphere" - would we be able to draw a line between "air" and "atmosphere, and conclude that this is a correct answer?

For this question, it would be reasonable to draw that connection between "air" and "atmosphere" like you're suggesting. Based on the last sentence of the stimulus, "heavy metals are harmful to the atmosphere" could be a correct answer since that last sentence describes heavy metals as "poison" that can escape into the air.

I thought to myself: What do I know about chlorofluorocarbons? What do the statements tell me? The only thing I know specifically about chlorofluorocarbons is that they 'contain heavy metals like lead and mercury'.

Welcome to the forums!

It might be worth rereading the first sentence again. We're told that refrigerators contain chlorofluorocarbons, but then the topic changes to circuit boards and CRTs. We're told that these contain heavy metals, but the sentence does not actually state that chlorofluorocarbons contain heavy metals.

If we were told that chlorofluorocarbons contain heavy metals, choice (C) would be a more appealing answer. That, combined with the last sentence, would provide some support for the idea that incinerating trash containing chlorofluorocarbons is harmful to the atmosphere. The problem with (C) is that the stimulus never explains exactly how chlorofluorocarbons are harmful or dangerous. We might know that they are harmful to the atmosphere based on real-world knowledge, but this isn't explicitly stated in the stimulus. We can support (B) using the information in the stimulus.

[JeremyK460]

I've got a little question regarding answer choice C: If the answer choice said "HEAVY METALS are harmful to the atmosphere" - would we be able to draw a line between "air" and "atmosphere, and conclude that this is a correct answer?

For this question, it would be reasonable to draw that connection between "air" and "atmosphere" like you're suggesting. Based on the last sentence of the stimulus, "heavy metals are harmful to the atmosphere" could be a correct answer since that last sentence describes heavy metals as "poison" that can escape into the air.

I thought to myself: What do I know about chlorofluorocarbons? What do the statements tell me? The only thing I know specifically about chlorofluorocarbons is that they 'contain heavy metals like lead and mercury'.

Welcome to the forums!

It might be worth rereading the first sentence again. We're told that refrigerators contain chlorofluorocarbons, but then the topic changes to circuit boards and CRTs. We're told that these contain heavy metals, but the sentence does not actually state that chlorofluorocarbons contain heavy metals.

If we were told that chlorofluorocarbons contain heavy metals, choice (C) would be a more appealing answer. That, combined with the last sentence, would provide some support for the idea that incinerating trash containing chlorofluorocarbons is harmful to the atmosphere. The problem with (C) is that the stimulus never explains exactly how chlorofluorocarbons are harmful or dangerous. We might know that they are harmful to the atmosphere based on real-world knowledge, but this isn't explicitly stated in the stimulus. We can support (B) using the information in the stimulus.

Thanks for getting back! These forums are awesome. I'm stoked someone replied!

You are SO right. I thought the semicolon after 'chlorofluorocarbons'...

"refrigerators contain chlorofluorocarbons; electronic circuit boards..."

...was a colon! And that what came after was a description of chlorofluorocarbons, which lead me to think that chlorofluorocarbons contained heavy metals.

Jeez! One "little" mishap and everything changes! THANK YOU!!