#25 - In most industrial waste products that contain the

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

I solved this question in 1 min34 seconds as I read it as a strengthen question and prephrased that the correct answer would touch upon the negative environmental impacts of the diluted solution. However, I don't see the antidiultion provision as being a conclusion supported by sentences 1-3. Please explain why the antidilution provision is a conclusion? Thanks.



Prephrased the answer here that dilution of XTX by manufacturers will have some negative effect upon the environment.

A: NI (off-point…doesn’t discuss dilution and its possible environmental effects)

B: Strengthens (close match with the prephrase)

C: NI

D: NI (irrelevant)

E: NI (Out of Scope of the stimulus as cost was never a factor even alluded to in the stimulus)

[Adam Tyson]

You're correct that it's not a conclusion in the stimulus, askuwheteau@protonmail.com. It's the question stem that tells us what to do here, which is support that provision. It's at this point that we can look at that provision as if it was a conclusion in need of some support. The question is essentially asking us to create an argument in support of that provision, so the correct answer could be viewed as a premise, the conclusion of which would be that we should include the antidilution provision.

Of course, you don't have to view it this way. You could instead just look at it as a decision that has been made, and our job is to find an answer that suggests that the decision was rational. It may even feel a bit like a Resolve the Paradox question, although the stimulus doesn't seem especially paradoxical. Strengthen and Resolve are very similar in many respects, and both involve answers that bring up new information that makes sense of something in the stimulus. Why not just dilute the stuff, since that would obviously reduce the concentration? The correct answer tells us why that wouldn't be acceptable.

So, in short, there are no premises in support of that provision. The correct answer provides one.

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

Thank you for the clarification!

[Dancingbambarina]

Does "not only" in the second sentence not indicate for two necessary conditions: Attract attention AND Hold long enough to convey message ?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Dancingbambarina!

I'm looking at the second sentence of this stimulus, which is, "A federal law intended to reduce the harm that can result from the introduction of XTX into the environment permits a company to dispose of these waste products in a dump for hazardous waste, but only if the concentration of XTX is below 500 parts per million." I don't see the words "not only" in this sentence. Perhaps you intended to post this question on a different thread?

[Dancingbambarina]

I am having a difficult time with D. It's tricky because it seems like it's a good reason to have anti-dilution laws: to stop people from damaging the environment which is hard to do because almost the only way to dump is by diluting to >800. Surely this is a great reason to have anti-dilution law?

Thank you

[BackinNC]

Hi everyone, I have no idea if this forum is still active, but I do have a quick question about the answer I chose. I still don't get it!

This is my thought process on how I got to D.

Summary of Stimulus(Let me know if I got it right):
- In most Industrial waste products contain XTX 1000 parts per million
- The federal law intends to reduce harm -> permits a company to dispose in dump for waste ONLY if the concentration of XTX is below 500 parts
- If concentration of XTX is above 500, it must be destroyed by incineration
- Moreover, diluting waste to bring their concentration of XTX down to a permissible level of dumping are not allowed

And I understood that the question was asking me to find which answer choice would make sense for the law to be enacted.

The reason I chose D was because I thought since the owners of dumps are willing to accept dumps that exceed 800parts, the law should be enacted in order to lower the standard to 500.

What am I missing?

Thank you in advance..

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Dancingbambarina and BackinNC!

On my reading, a critical problem with answer choice (D) is that it doesn't mention diluting at all. We want something that strengthens a conclusion specifically about dilution, and more specifically, as Adam summarizes, a conclusion that we should include the antidilution provision. Even if (D) were true--that is, even if dump owners only accept XTX in concentrations below 800 parts per million, on its own that doesn't do anything to that conclusion, which also means it doesn't support it. If (D) were true, it might be the case that most businesses wouldn't have anywhere to dispose of XTX other than by incineration, but that on its own doesn't speak to the value of the antidilution provision.

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi Dancingbambarina and BackinNC!

On my reading, a critical problem with answer choice (D) is that it doesn't mention diluting at all. We want something that strengthens a conclusion specifically about dilution, and more specifically, as Adam summarizes, a conclusion that we should include the antidilution provision. Even if (D) were true--that is, even if dump owners only accept XTX in concentrations below 800 parts per million, on its own that doesn't do anything to that conclusion, which also means it doesn't support it. If (D) were true, it might be the case that most businesses wouldn't have anywhere to dispose of XTX other than by incineration, but that on its own doesn't speak to the value of the antidilution provision.

Thanks so much Luke! That clears things up nicely.