PrepTest 144, Section 3, Question 25
In most industrial waste products that contain the(98 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(15 more words not shown)
- AIf improperly incinerated,(33 more words not shown)
- BIf present in(16 more words not shown)
- CWhen XTX is(24 more words not shown)
- DMost owners of(22 more words not shown)
- ETo manufacturers, the(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Adding more material to the waste doesn't remove the XTX already in it.
The law uses concentration to decide what can go into a hazardous-waste dump. Most of the waste starts at about 1,000 parts per million, above the 500-parts-per-million limit. At those higher concentrations it must be incinerated. The law also blocks an apparent workaround: manufacturers can't dilute the waste until its concentration is low enough to dump.
If we were asked what follows from those rules, we'd expect most of this waste to require incineration. But the actual question is why the law should include that last restriction. Why not let a manufacturer add something to make the concentration lower?
What we’re looking for
I'd look for a reason dilution doesn't solve the environmental problem. Perhaps the total amount of XTX matters, not just the percentage in a particular batch. Adding water, for example, would spread the same amount of chemical through a larger volume. If that still creates the harm the law aims to prevent, lowering the concentration wouldn't justify dumping it.
Working the answers
- A
Improper incineration could create a serious problem, but that isn't a reason to forbid dilution. We need to explain why diluting and dumping the waste remains harmful. A describes what happens when the other disposal method is carried out incorrectly. It doesn't show why the apparent dilution workaround should be prohibited.
- BCorrect
Enough diluted XTX can cause as much harm as more concentrated XTX. So a manufacturer could lower the concentration while still disposing of a harmful quantity of the chemical. The added material wouldn't remove that quantity. Prohibiting dilution prevents manufacturers from meeting the numerical concentration rule while leaving the underlying environmental danger in place.
- C
Eventual breakdown doesn't explain why dilution must be prohibited. The answer doesn't say how long the breakdown takes or what harm XTX could cause before then. More fundamentally, it describes what sunlight and oxygen do, not a reason that diluting waste fails to make dumping safe.
- D
Dump owners' willingness to accept certain concentrations doesn't establish the environmental consequences of accepting them. Their 800-parts-per-million cutoff also differs from the law's limit. We need a reason to prevent dilution to a legally permitted concentration, not information about what concentrations owners would accept.
- E
Equal costs don't explain the environmental case against dilution. Even if manufacturers spend the same amount using either method, dumping diluted waste might be harmful or harmless. The law aims to reduce environmental harm, and the cost comparison leaves that issue unanswered.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.