Q25 - In most industrial waste products that contain the tox

[T.J.]

Since nobody has posted questions for this one, let me take a crack on this and give my two cents

Basically, the stimulus tells us that a federal law permits a company to dispose of XTX in a dump on the condition that the concentration is below 500. Wastes with concentration above that level must be incinerated. A further provision disallows any attempt to dilute XTX (This is also what the question stem refers to as the anti-dilution provision of the law)

A. First, the phrase "improperly incinerated" tips me off. We do not have enough information as to how risky the incineration is or whether the waste would be improperly dealt with at all. Second, it goes against the first provision, not the second one that the question asked.

B. This looks good but a little weak. So the law-makers takes into account the potential accumulation of XTX. That's why they don't let the companies to dilute the pollutant.

C. "Exposed to sunlight and oxygen"... huh...Honestly, we don't know about what the environment a waste dump has. Will there be sunlight and oxygen? We don't know. Moreover, this actually weakens the anti-dilution provision, because it points out that XTX will break down under the influence of sunlight and oxygen, thereby weakening the provision.

D. OK, most owners of dumps will accept XTX with 800-and-below concentration. But why the heck does the law not like dilution? It does not argue in favor of the antidilution provision. Therefore, we eliminate it.

E. This one gives us a cost comparison, which I don't see the impact it has on the argument. Probably some of you think different from me. Let me know if there is concern for this guy.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Another great breakdown T.J.!

This is a rather interesting Strengthen question in that the position being strengthened is not actually a conclusion of the stimulus, but rather is implied from the question itself. Even on an unusual question like this (or perhaps *especially* on an unusual question like this!) I would encourage you to continue to attempt to see the argument in terms of the core.

While the conclusion is implied from the question stem, the stimulus consists of the premises (and background information) we expect from an argument core. So, if the conclusion is that the law should include the anti-dilution provision, what in the stimulus supports that? All we know about the law is that it is intended to reduce environmental harm from XTX, and that it limits dumping to low concentration XTX.

So we can think of the core here like this:

PREMISES
The law is intended to reduce the harm that can result from the introduction of XTX to the environment.
The law only permits dumping of low concentration XTX, while high concentration must be incinerated.
CONCLUSION (implied from the question stem)
The law should include an anti-dilution provision.

The only way this conclusion will follow from the information we have is if we can tie diluting/dumping to the harm we know the law is intended to reduce. (B) joins them perfectly, pointing out that diluting/dumping ends up being just as harmful as high concentration dumping. The high concentration dumping is harmful enough that the law applies, so if the diluting/dumping is just as bad, it would follow that the law should apply there too!

Just a few tweaks to your great eliminations!
(A) We are concerned with a restriction on the dumping - the dangers of incineration are out of scope!
(C) Not only does this suggest the XTX isn't so bad, but it also doesn't differentiate between diluted XTX and other types of XTX - that's a distinction we need to support a restriction specifically on dilution/dumping.
(D) Again - no differentiation between diluted and undiluted XTX. Also, no mention of the harm it causes, which is what we know the law is concerned with.
(E) Who cares what the manufacturers think? The law is concerned with harm, not making manufacturers happy.


Keep up the great analysis work, T.J., but don't forget to stay focused on distilling the core. It can really shed light on complex questions!

[sh854]

Hi Christine,

I appreciate your explanation but do not understand why you ruled out B and D. Can you please clarify?

[tommywallach]

(B) is the answer, and (D) was explained above. If you have a question about her explanation, please ask that more specifically. Thanks!

-t

[JenniferK632]

I read this question and assumed it was an inference question, even during blind review. Any advice in differentiating between Strengthen v. Principle Support v. Most Strongly Supported questions?

[Laura Damone]

Absolutely! The rule we teach is "Infer down, Strengthen Up." What does that mean? Well, in an Inference question such as Most Strongly Supported, the information in the stimulus above supports the answer choices below. The support moves down from the stimulus to the correct answer. In a Strengthen question such as Principle support, the correct answer below supports the stimulus above. The support moves up from the answer to the argument. Does that make sense?

Check out the Family Feud drills in your 5lb book to practice this skill! The first is on page 413 and the second is on page 542.

hope this helps!