PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 21
People who object to the proposed hazardous waste(92 more words not shown)
The statements above, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe waste should(8 more words not shown)
- BThe waste should(12 more words not shown)
- CMoving the waste(12 more words not shown)
- DWhenever waste must(16 more words not shown)
- EAny site to(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Leaving the waste where it is has risks too.
It's understandable to worry about a new hazardous-waste site. My first questions would be how likely a leak is and how serious the consequences could be. An unlikely event could still matter if its consequences were severe. But the passage describes these objections as relying on extremely implausible scenarios, while the current location is unsafe.
The author also points out that waiting for certainty isn't a quick alternative. No site can presently be guaranteed safe, so insisting on a guarantee would leave the waste in its current location for years. The passage calls that continued risk unacceptable. Doing nothing while searching isn't the same as avoiding danger.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what these statements most strongly support, so we take the stated assessment of the risks as given. My broad takeaway is that waiting indefinitely isn't a good solution. We should look for a modest conclusion about reducing the danger, without demanding a perfect site or assuming any move would be an improvement.
Working the answers
- A
The current location could have been a reasonable choice when the waste was first stored there. Conditions might have changed, or better options might have become available. We know the argument calls continued storage unsafe now, not that storing it there was always a mistake.
- B
The most secure location that can ever be found sets an extraordinary standard. The author warns against leaving the waste in danger while waiting for a guaranteed solution. Nothing establishes that we must find the best possible site for all time before moving it.
- CCorrect
The passage contrasts significant risks from remaining at the present location with extremely implausible failure scenarios at the proposed one. That supports moving to the proposed site as a reduction in the threat.
Reduction doesn't mean elimination. The proposed site needn't be perfectly safe for the move to improve the situation. This answer fits the comparison the author develops without claiming the certainty the passage says is unavailable.
- D
Whenever waste must be moved is much broader than this one situation. Perhaps another situation allows a long search without dangerous delay. The passage gives a reason not to wait indefinitely here; it doesn't establish a time-limit rule for every waste relocation.
- E
A bad current site doesn't make every other site safer. Moving the waste somewhere with even poorer containment or closer to vulnerable people could make things worse. The passage supports the proposed alternative, not an unrestricted claim that any possible destination would improve safety.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.