Q21 - People who object to the proposed

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great discussion going on here guys!

Let's take this one apart from top to bottom. Since this is an inference question, there's no core to break down. Also, the correct answer is likely to unpredictable, but it will be fully supportable from the information in the stimulus.

To begin, let's sort out the basic information given to us in the stimulus:

1) Proposed new site for hazardous waste = unlikely to fail
2) Significant risk if we leave the hazardous waste where it is
3) Would take years to find a site that's 100% certain to be safe
4) The risks in #2 for the years in #3 are unacceptable.

Only (C) is supportable from this information. If the current location results in a significant/unacceptable level of risk, and the idea of the proposed location failing is "implausible", then clearly the new location is safer than the current one! Moving the waste to the proposed site would therefore reduce the risk.

The Unsupportable
(A) We have no information about what happened in the past. Perhaps the current location was the best one that was available at the time the waste was first stored!

(B) One could argue this goes against the information given. Finding 'the most secure location that can ever be found' could take years, and in the interim, the waste will continue to pose significant risks in its current location. Additionally, there's nothing in the stimulus that actually tells us what we should or should not do.

(D) First, this answer is far broader than we can support by use of the term "whenever". Additionally, the stimulus never indicates what we should or should not do. And lastly, the author never says anything about limiting the time - perhaps the author believes that one should go ahead and move the waste to the proposed location and then also keep looking for an even better site. We just don't know!

(E) Like (D), this goes much further than the information supports by use of the word "any". We only know that the proposed site is safer than the present one, not that any site would be safer!


To answer a few questions:

I was hesitant about C, the correct answer, because a suitable proposed site has not been located as the stimulus said "currently impossible to guarantee that any site can meet that criterion." How can we know that there is a "proposed site" as mentioned in C?

The stimulus only says that a site that is 100% safe is currently impossible to find. The proposed site (which is just likely to be safe) is mentioned in the first sentence.

Is D incorrect because of two issues? 1. there is no mentioning of "allotted time" in the stimulus. 2. the term "waste" is too general since the stimulus is talking about hazardous waste. However, the term "waste" was also used in answers A, B, C, and E.

It's not the term "waste" itself that is too general, but rather that it says "whenever waste must be moved" - the "whenever" makes it a blanket rule, and that's too general.

Please let me know if this completely answers your questions!


#officialexplanation

[jlz1202]

I narrow down to (C) but hesitate when seeing "would reduce the threat posed by the waste" since the stimulus does not contain any word saying relocating would "decrease/lower" the risk. I read through again and justify the answer this way: the stimulus conveys the following sense: if the waste retains at the current site, there is definite risk; if the waste is relocated, it could be safe but not guaranteed--it could be safe. So compared to the "definite risk" remaining at current site, relocation would be safer.

I think (D) is somehow tempting and the flaw is "limite the amount...locating ...sites", if replaced by "limit...alloteed to relocating the waste", (D) could be correct.

Could any one help and correct the thought above? Thanks a lot!

[LSAT-Chang]

I narrow down to (C) but hesitate when seeing "would reduce the threat posed by the waste" since the stimulus does not contain any word saying relocating would "decrease/lower" the risk. I read through again and justify the answer this way: the stimulus conveys the following sense: if the waste retains at the current site, there is definite risk; if the waste is relocated, it could be safe but not guaranteed--it could be safe. So compared to the "definite risk" remaining at current site, relocation would be safer.

I agree with you in that (C) is supported from the statements since we are told that there are "significant risks associated with delays in moving the waste from its present unsafe location" and "keeping the waste at the current location for that long clearly poses unacceptable risks" -- so we can infer that moving waste out of the current location and moving it to the proposed site would be better. We also get more support from the first sentence of these people who object to this proposed site are appealing to "extremely implausible scenarios in which the site fails to contain the waste safely" -- so VERY unlikely that this is true.

I think (D) is somehow tempting and the flaw is "limite the amount...locating ...sites", if replaced by "limit...alloteed to relocating the waste", (D) could be correct.

Could any one help and correct the thought above? Thanks a lot!

I think the main reason why we should eliminate (D) is because of the word "whenever" -- we have absolutely no evidence from the statements that we should limit the amount of time allotted to locating alternative waste storage sites WHENEVER waste must be moved -- there could certainly be other wastes out there that don't need to be moved immediately since they don't pose any risk, so we could spend years looking for an alternative site. This answer is too general and doesn't have support from the statements.

Hope this helps!

[eddiemendoza23]

I'm having a hard time accepting C as the answer. I narrowed it down to C and B but on answer choice C it says "reduce the threat posed by the waste" and in the stimulus it says "significant risks associated with delays in moving the waste from its present unsafe LOCATION". So I figured the location was risky, not the waste

Help?

[sumukh09]

I'm having a hard time accepting C as the answer. I narrowed it down to C and B but on answer choice C it says "reduce the threat posed by the waste" and in the stimulus it says "significant risks associated with delays in moving the waste from its present unsafe LOCATION". So I figured the location was risky, not the waste

Help?

It's going to take too long to find a site that can safely store the waste, so keeping it at its current location is unsafe because it will stay there for too long; and this is the what the "threat" is. Moving it to a storage site will reduce that threat as it will no longer pose any significant risks - maybe the current site is near a populated town and leaving it at the current site poses risks due to the air pollution caused by the waste.

The location IS risky, and it's risky because of the effect it creates - the effect being that the waste will remain at the location for too long of a time if stored there. B is incorrect because it counters the recommendation in the stimulus which is to move it to the proposed site instead of waiting until a safe location can be found for the waste. I *think* we can assume interchangeability between "secure" and "safe" for the purposes of this question.

[GeneW]

I was trying to decide between C and D. I was hesitant about C, the correct answer, because a suitable proposed site has not been located as the stimulus said "currently impossible to guarantee that any site can meet that criterion." How can we know that there is a "proposed site" as mentioned in C?

Is D incorrect because of two issues? 1. there is no mentioning of "allotted time" in the stimulus. 2. the term "waste" is too general since the stimulus is talking about hazardous waste. However, the term "waste" was also used in answers A, B, C, and E.

It would be greatly appreciated if someone can clarify these issues.

[GeneW]

Thank you for the great explanations.

[judaydaday]

Great discussion going on here guys!

Let's take this one apart from top to bottom. Since this is an inference question, there's no core to break down. Also, the correct answer is likely to unpredictable, but it will be fully supportable from the information in the stimulus.

To begin, let's sort out the basic information given to us in the stimulus:

1) Proposed new site for hazardous waste = unlikely to fail
2) Significant risk if we leave the hazardous waste where it is
3) Would take years to find a site that's 100% certain to be safe
4) The risks in #2 for the years in #3 are unacceptable.

Only (C) is supportable from this information. If the current location results in a significant/unacceptable level of risk, and the idea of the proposed location failing is "implausible", then clearly the new location is safer than the current one! Moving the waste to the proposed site would therefore reduce the risk.

The Unsupportable
(A) We have no information about what happened in the past. Perhaps the current location was the best one that was available at the time the waste was first stored!

(B) One could argue this goes against the information given. Finding 'the most secure location that can ever be found' could take years, and in the interim, the waste will continue to pose significant risks in its current location. Additionally, there's nothing in the stimulus that actually tells us what we should or should not do.

(D) First, this answer is far broader than we can support by use of the term "whenever". Additionally, the stimulus never indicates what we should or should not do. And lastly, the author never says anything about limiting the time - perhaps the author believes that one should go ahead and move the waste to the proposed location and then also keep looking for an even better site. We just don't know!

(E) Like (D), this goes much further than the information supports by use of the word "any". We only know that the proposed site is safer than the present one, not that any site would be safer!


To answer a few questions:

I was hesitant about C, the correct answer, because a suitable proposed site has not been located as the stimulus said "currently impossible to guarantee that any site can meet that criterion." How can we know that there is a "proposed site" as mentioned in C?

The stimulus only says that a site that is 100% safe is currently impossible to find. The proposed site (which is just likely to be safe) is mentioned in the first sentence.

Is D incorrect because of two issues? 1. there is no mentioning of "allotted time" in the stimulus. 2. the term "waste" is too general since the stimulus is talking about hazardous waste. However, the term "waste" was also used in answers A, B, C, and E.

It's not the term "waste" itself that is too general, but rather that it says "whenever waste must be moved" - the "whenever" makes it a blanket rule, and that's too general.

Please let me know if this completely answers your questions!

I just have a quick question about eliminating answer choices based on the word "should." It seems like a great way to eliminate answer choices...but when is it possible to infer "should?" Is it only when it is explicitly stated in the stimulus?

Can the phrase "clearly poses unacceptable risk" imply that you shouldn't kept the waste at the current location? I know that there are no answer choices that states this, but i just want to know if the rule of "should" can apply to an implicit "should."

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great question, judaydaday!

The word "should" always makes me raise a skeptical eyebrow. It's not an autokill, but it is a bright flashing 'proceed with caution' sign.

That being said, if an answer choice for this question claimed that we "shouldn't keep the waste at the current location for many years", or that we "shouldn't wait to remove the waste from its current location until we find a site certain to contain the waste safely", I'd be quite comfortable with that inference, precisely of the phrase "unacceptable risk".

While it may not be an ironclad mathematical proof that we shouldn't engage in unacceptable risks, it defies rational thought! What kind of crazy would someone have to be to think it was okay to engage in unacceptable risks? Now, I would not feel comfortable inferring kind of 'should' language if the stimulus has simply said that the risks were "astronomically high". But the word "unacceptable" contains, by definition, an evaluation of what we should and shouldn't do.

"Should" should always make you skeptical, but it is possible to implicitly support it - but the support still has to be extremely robust!!

Let me know if this helped clear up a few things!

[matthughes2]

I got this question right but by PoE. I hesitated to select C, the correct answer, because the words "would reduce" seemed too strong. Just because the risk of failure at the new site is "extremely implausible" doesn't mean "impossible", and while it's implied that keeping it at the current site confers a near-certainty of an accident, that again doesn't mean to me that moving it WILL necessarily reduce the threat. The tiny amount of wiggle room between the phrases "extremely implausible" and "significant"/"unacceptable risks" leaves open the possibility that moving the site will in no way reduce the threat. Even if there's a .001% chance that the new site would fail to contain the risk, it is therefore possible that they could move it and it fail to contain the waste, like, the same day. This means to me that C is not waterproof because it says that moving the waste WOULD reduce the threat. That doesn't seem right.

The only way that C would be waterproof, if I'm reading this right, is if the present site was fated to have an accident and the new site was absolutely assured to contain the waste. I guess, if you're reading the choices strictly logically, if there's a 51% chance of an accident at the present site and a 50% chance at the new site, then you've reduced the threat. I just don't think the language really supports that and is therefore the only reason I wouldn't have selected C. It just so happens that the other choices were all really bad.