#23 - Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral once

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (E)

The stimulus explains that asbestos only becomes dangerous when disturbed, and that removing asbestos disturbs it. The stimulus concludes that the government should not require the removal of all asbestos.

The stimulus presumes that some asbestos is less likely to be disturbed in the course of the natural use of a building than it is to be disturbed by removal. You are asked to strengthen the argument, so you might respond to that assumption.

Answer choice (A): This incorrect choice is inexplicably without relevance. The argument is based on whether the risk of removal is higher than the risk of leaving asbestos alone. This choice provides no relevant information, and attempts to support the conclusion with information not relevant to the premises and assumptions of the argument. You were asked to support the whole argument, not merely the conclusion. Furthermore, the idea that other factors pose more of a risk is not good support even for the conclusion that asbestos ought to be left alone.

Answer choice (B): The information that asbestos can pose a risk to removal workers who do not wear required protection might seem to strengthen the conclusion that the asbestos should be left alone. However, since the workers could wear their protective gear, this response actually offers little support.

Answer choice (C): This choice makes some asbestos more harmful than others, but that does not convincingly offer support to the idea that some asbestos should not be removed. You might have though that this choice supports that more harmful asbestos should not be disturbed by removal, but since that more harmful asbestos would be potentially harmful if accidentally disturbed, its removal could be even more critical.

Answer choice (D): This choice states that asbestos will inevitably be disturbed, which suggests that avoiding its removal is pointless, weakening the conclusion that removal should be avoided.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. If removed asbestos is buried, forgotten, and may be accidentally disturbed in the future, that suggests that removing asbestos does not end the problem, so the eventual consequences of removal may be dangerous. That introduces one more risk factor into removal, supporting the idea that the risk of removal outweighs the risk of leaving asbestos alone, so this choice supports the whole argument.

[Tony_Stark]

Hi! I have a question about answer choice C.

In the conclusion "the government should not require the removal of ALL asbestos insulation"
I took this to mean, the government should require the removal of SOME asbestos insulation

from there, I saw answer choice C and chose it "Some kinds of asbestos, when disturbed, pose greater health risks than do other kinds." - My reasoning was that the government would require the removal of the most dangerous asbestos, and not the less dangerous kinds (some but not all).

I do see why E is the correct answer, but I'm having trouble seeing why C is not correct.

Thanks!

[co659]

I also had the same thinking that "some" asbestos would be required to be removed according to the conclusion,but not all so I chose (C) - could we shed some light on that ?

Thanks !

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Tony and Co659,

Good questions! Let's take a look. First, Tony, let's consider your statement about the conclusion:

In the conclusion "the government should not require the removal of ALL asbestos insulation"
I took this to mean, the government should require the removal of SOME asbestos insulation.

These statements are not in fact equivalent. "The government should not require the removal of all asbestos insulation" does not imply than any should be removed. It would be consistent or possible with this conclusion for it to be inadvisable for any asbestos insulation to be removed. The only definitive claim here is that the government should not require the removal of all asbestos. It is an open question whether the government should require the removal of any insulation. This idea is outside the scope of this argument.

With this idea in mind, does (C) strengthen the conclusion at all? Perhaps. It is possible that the fact that there are different degrees in danger with different types of asbestos that we could conclude that we should differentiate between these kinds of asbestos in making decisions to remove some rather than others. However, as the explanation above notes, we wouldn't exactly know what to do based on this difference in danger. Would it be more dangerous to leave more dangerous asbestos in buildings? Would it be more dangerous to remove it? These are open questions. We would have to introduce additional assumptions to use this "relative danger of kinds of asbestos" consideration as grounds to strengthen our conclusion. Therefore, this answer choice (C) does not in and of itself give very good support for our conclusion.

In contrast, answer choice (E) illustrates a potential danger in removing asbestos; that is, in the event that asbestos is removed, it could in fact still pose a danger after its disposal. Therefore, we have solid, direct evidence to show that the removal of asbestos poses a real danger. This consideration gives direct support for the conclusion that the government should not require the removal of all asbestos.

I hope this helps!

[Tony_Stark]

Thanks, that helps a lot.

Between doing this question and reading your response I went over Logical Opposites. "All" (100%) vs. "Not All" (0-99%), so your response is crystal clear.

Thanks!

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

Can we also get rid of D because it restates what is already stated in the premise "since removing asbestos from building disturbs it" so if we know the asbestos is inevitably (certain that it will happen) disturbed then isn't that a repeat of the stimulus?

Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not sure that disturbing it while removing it and disturbing it during renovations or demolition are quite the same thing, but close enough, perhaps. Answer D doesn't give us a reason to leave it in place, certainly, and if anything weakens the argument by letting us know that leaving it in place won't leave it undisturbed, but just delays the disturbance.

[lunsandy]

Right, I can see how D actually weakens it more. Thanks Adam!

[cindyhylee87]

Ho Powerscore,

I ended up choosing (C) because if some kinds of asbestos, when disturbed, pose greater health risks than do other kinds, it seems to me that these types of asbestos should not be removed/disturbed due to the health risks involved. And this would strengthen the conclusion.

Thanks,
Cindy

[Jay Donnell]

Hi Cindyhylee87!

This is a tricky answer in a tricky question (no surprise there for a #23 I suppose!), so I'm going to do my best to help clear up the issue behind C failing to be the correct response to strengthen the argument.


We are told in the stimulus that asbestos poses no risks unless disturbed and the fibers are released into the environment. We are told that removing asbestos obviously involves disturbing it and releasing the fibers into the environment, so the author concludes that the government should not require the removal of all asbestos insulation.


The reason E works so well is that it compounds the risk involved when we know that the asbestos is not only disturbed once when it is removed and taken to the landfill, but also has the potential to be disturbed again as it's forgotten about and has no guarantee that it will be left alone.

C has a few issues behind its reasoning as a Strengthen answer here. Knowing that some kinds of asbestos pose greater health risks when disturbed doesn't allow us to know how many types that is, or how common or rare they may be. What if that is meant to imply just that one rare type of the hundreds (or even thousands, who can say?) types of asbestos poses huge health risks, and that the other 99% of more common varieties are relatively harmless. That could imply this answer may be be stretched more toward Weaken territory, but the fact that the answer could maybe imply the inverse, that 99% of common asbestos are deadly and the rare ones are relatively harmless means that it's an ineffective answer to strengthen or to weaken the argument.

We know that asbestos (as a general concept) is harmless until disturbed, which allows the idea that while disturbed it does pose a risk of harm, so implying that some types harm more than others doesn't offer much support to the conclusion that due to this risk of harm we should not mandate its removal.

Imagine this analogy to hopefully help further clarify this issue.

Since donuts are known to be unhealthy and lead to serious medical problems if eaten too regularly, you should not include donuts as part of your everyday breakfast.

Can you see here why the idea that "some donuts are less healthy than others" doesn't really help support the conclusion?


I hope that this helps to clear it up! Be sure to respond if not and I will take another path toward helping you get out of this sticky situation! Darn, now I want to eat a Krispy Kreme donut...