PrepTest 144, Section 3, Question 11
Activist: Accidents at the Three Mile Island and(101 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(18 more words not shown)
- Awhether the current(11 more words not shown)
- Bwhether the processes(18 more words not shown)
- Cwhether the cost(12 more words not shown)
- Dwhether the burning(24 more words not shown)
- Ewhether waste products(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could sewage help replace nuclear power? Maybe. Now tell me whether there is enough of it, whether the process is safe, and whether the whole plan can supply the energy we need.
The activist points to real concerns about nuclear power and offers a new way to produce usable oil. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power might contribute too. But having alternatives available doesn't establish that they can meet everyone's needs. Nor does calling something an alternative tell us that it causes less environmental harm.
I'd want to investigate the supply of sewage sludge, the amount of power the proposed sources could generate, and the environmental costs of making and using the fuel. A solution that creates equally serious hazards could disappoint us even if it supplies plenty of energy.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the consideration that is least relevant to evaluating this hope. So we want four questions that could help us assess whether the plan works, and one that contributes the least. We don't have to predict that odd question precisely; we can ask what each answer would tell us about feasibility or environmental improvement.
Working the answers
- A
This matters because current disposal is part of the environmental comparison. If dumping sludge harms the environment, using it for fuel might avoid some of that harm. If dumping is harmless, that particular advantage disappears. Either answer would help us compare the proposed system with what happens now, so A is relevant.
- BCorrect
Whether sewage processing has improved over recent decades doesn't by itself tell us whether the proposed energy plan is practical now. We need facts about current supply, costs, output, and harm. A history of improvement does not specify any of those.
We might try to connect better processing with less sludge available for fuel. But the answer doesn't say that improvement reduces sludge, much less that it will leave us without enough. We'd be adding the connection ourselves. The other four considerations address the plan's practicality or environmental comparison directly; this one doesn't.
- C
Economic sustainability matters. If producing and using this fuel costs more than we can sustain, the technology may not be a practical way to replace nuclear power. A process can work technically without being affordable enough to use at the required scale.
- D
The hope includes better environmental protection. If burning the oil releases gases that cause harmful global warming, that is a cost we need to consider against the nuclear option. It doesn't automatically settle the entire comparison, but it plainly bears on it.
- E
Dangerous waste is another direct part of the comparison. If producing and burning the sludge-derived oil creates waste as dangerous as nuclear fuel does, the promised environmental improvement becomes less clear. Knowing whether that is so helps evaluate the activist's hope.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.