It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim cou...

ShannonOh22 August 5, 2019

Little clarification on B being incorrect please!

I have read through the other discussion chains here, but I am still a bit hazy on why B would not be correct...if you can help to clarify, that would be great! Here is my reasoning behind B: B) states "In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than in a densely populated area"...this provides an alternative cause for putting the waste sites in a remote area, and is purely precautionary (necessary only IF there is an accident) so it is not an admittance of a "threat" or of any danger to the REGULAR treatment and existence of nuclear waste. An accident is unplanned, but to minimize exposure of actual nuclear waste materials in the air (which would clearly be a threat to human safety, no matter where it occurs), it would make sense to take all measures possible to minimize the risk. Again, this does NOT admit that waste, when managed properly and accidents are non-existent, is a threat to the population. I can understand that C also weakens the argument, but I don't think it does so to a greater extent than B. Both offer alternate causes for putting nuclear waste dumps in sparsely populated areas, and neither of them admit danger in the normal treatment of nuclear waste. Please help to set me straight! Thanks! :)

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Irina August 6, 2019

@Shannon,

Great question. I think your approach to (B) makes a lot of sense, but notice that the passage never tells us what kind of threat is discussed. The author is not saying "nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby in the course of regular treatment," leaving the door open for a broad definition of threat, which may include any threats to safety, whether in the course of regular storage, an accident, or any other reason - as long as it concerns people's safety, it is a threat.. Since (B) talks about a scenario where nuclear waste is located in a sparsely populated area due to safety reasons, it strengthens the conclusion questioning the safety of this practice rather than weakens it.

Does this help?

Let me know if you have any other questions.

nizhoni October 8, 2019

Try this method:

1st. Conclusion: The dumping of nuclear waste is probably or might be dangerous to people.
2nd. Evidence: dumping sites are not located in densely populated areas & the policies for dumping sites are in sparsely populated regions.
3rd. Connection b/w evidence and conclusion: the dumping site being linked to safety
4th. Evaluation of the argument: assuming that safety is a concern to where the waste is dumped
5th. My guess (I had two) 1) It just might be cheaper or easier to dump in isolated areas 2. Maybe there is no room to dump the waste in populated areas.

Answer choice C reflected my prediction: "Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in densely populated areas." I eliminated anything that was concerned with safety.