PrepTest 158, Section 1, Question 2
A major problem facing industrial societies is their(443 more words not shown)
The passage most strongly suggests(8 more words not shown)
- AThe use of(14 more words not shown)
- BInjection of hazardous(22 more words not shown)
- CDeep-well injection of(16 more words not shown)
- DDisposal of hazardous(17 more words not shown)
- EDrinking-water wells are(14 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The third problem gives us a useful inference: waste doesn't necessarily stay near the injection site. Underground water can move “thousands of meters per year,” so placing waste far from a water supply doesn't guarantee that the water supply will remain protected. Check the choices against what we actually learned, especially the direction of the depth and cost comparisons.
Working the answers
- A
We learn that landfills and incinerators have become more expensive and regulated. That doesn't tell us that they are no longer considered safe. Cost and safety aren't interchangeable.
- B
The cost comparison runs the other way. Beyond 1,800 meters, another disposal method becomes more cost-effective; deeper injection isn't presented as the less expensive option. We also don't get the claimed danger comparison with injection at 300 meters.
- CCorrect
Pressure gradients can transport underground water great distances through rock and faults. That gives injected waste a way to reach drinking-water aquifers far from where it entered the ground. The risk isn't limited to the immediate area around the well.
- D
We aren't told that landfills avoid groundwater contamination. Identifying a risk of deep-well injection doesn't prove that another disposal method lacks that risk.
- E
This reverses the intended arrangement. Injection wells generally place waste below the aquifers containing drinkable water, not above deeper drinking-water supplies.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.