Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 3 · Question 25

Incorrect. The stem asks us to strengthen the implied argument for inclusion of the antidilution provision in regulations on dumping, so what happens during incineration—the alternative to dumping—is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð XTX is a toxic chemical concentrated at 1,000ppm in industrial waste
Federal law goal Ð Reduce environmental harm of XTX
Details Ð Under 500ppm can be dumped; at or over 500ppm must be burned
Antidilution provision Ð Manufacturers can't dilute XTX to get it under 500ppm

Answer Anticipation:
First, note that the stimulus itself doesn't feature an argument. Rather, it presents information, and the question stem brings up the implied conclusion—the antidilution provision is a good thing to include in the law. It's important to know what you're strengthening!

So what's the shortcoming in the argument? Why isn't it established that this provision is good?

The danger associated with XTX seems to be tied to its concentration. The law itself delineates between XTX that can be dumped and that can't solely on the concentration of it in the waste that's being dumped.

As such, it's unclear why there needs to be an antidilution provision—if the relevant factor in environmental damage is the concentration of XTX, wouldn't diluting it make it safe? That must not be the case for the antidilution provision to make sense, so to strengthen its inclusion, we should look for an answer that establishes XTX diluted below the legal limit is still environmentally dangerous.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that diluted XTX can be environmentally damaging, thus supporting a call for an antidilution provision in the law limiting the dumping of XTX.

Key Takeaway:
Sometimes, you can simplify an argument quite a bit. Here, our Anticipation boiled down to, "Find an answer saying diluted XTX is bad." While you don't want to lose details that could be key to the correct answer, you also want to make sure that you're fully breaking these arguments down and not getting distracted by extraneous information!

Incorrect. It's unclear how dilution plays a role in exposing XTX to sunlight and oxygen. If anything, by increasing the volume of the waste product by diluting it, it might take longer for the XTX to break down.

Incorrect. The willingness of the owners of these dumps to accept XTX at a certain level doesn't determine the environmental impact of dumping it, or how dilution affects those effects.

Incorrect. If it was cheaper to dilute and dump the XTX, that would give the manufacturers a reason to do so and thus the government a reason to include the antidilution provision . . . if diluted XTX damages the environment. This answer, in stating that the costs are the same, doesn't provide a motive to dilute and dump and still fails to establish that this diluted XTX is environmentally damaging, so it doesn't strengthen the argument for inclusion of the provision.