#14 - The Biocarb Company wants to build a sterilization

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (B)

The argument describes a situation in which residents and environmental activists are concerned that Biocarb's sterilization plant will pollute an area. Biocarb's president argues that the plant cannot cause pollution because the waste would be sterile after processing.

The president's argument is incomplete at best, because there is obviously the chance that the plant could cause pollution directly by an accident before sterilization, or indirectly by transportation issues.

You are asked to identify a necessary assumption, so you should focus on the incomplete nature of the president's evidence.

Answer choice (A): Since a response about what occurs after sterilization is not relevant to the incomplete nature of the argument, this choice is wrong. Furthermore, the belief of the environmentalist group is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish what is the actual case.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The president assumes that nothing can go wrong before the sterilization occurs.

Answer choice (C): The president only concludes that the plant cannot cause pollution, not that there are no other concerns. This response, which addresses the possibility that pollution is not the only concern, is totally irrelevant and incorrect, because in fact pollution was the issue.

Answer choice (D): Since the residents of the area were also concerned, this assumption is inconsistent with the stimulus and is incorrect. Furthermore, for the purposes of logic it is not necessary to assume anything about the source of the concern, it is only necessary to address the concern in a factual manner.

Answer choice (E): Since the president only asserted that the sterilization method had excellent results, not that the method had the best possible results, consideration of better methods is irrelevant. This choice is incorrect.

As a note to the somewhat concise explanations, you will notice that there is a theme in these choices. A person who read through the stimulus too quickly might have simply summarized that the president argues there is no reason not to put the plant in that area, in which case non-pollution objections seem legitimate. Or, an overly quick reading could have yielded similarly flawed representations of the conclusion. It is particularly noteworthy that a long stimulus that might encourage skimming is accompanied by 4 choices that, to the precise and careful reader, are entirely off-topic or irrelevant.

[olafimihan.k]

Hello,

I'm a little bit confused on why AC E is wrong. If we negeated E, wouldn't it kill the argument?

Please help me understand.

Thanks.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Olaf,

The company president stated that the steam superheating method was an effective and guaranteed way to sterilize medical waste. He does not state that this method is the best way, or the surest way. Make sure that you look out for superlatives like this in the future.

The president does not need to assume that this method is the most sure way to treat the waste. Even if there were another, surer way to treat waste, it could still be true that this method gets the job done.

[Blueballoon5%]

The argument describes a situation in which residents and environmental activists are concerned that Biocarb's sterilization plant will pollute an area. Biocarb's president argues that the plant cannot cause pollution because the waste would be sterile after processing.

The president's argument is incomplete at best, because there is obviously the chance that the plant could cause pollution directly by an accident before sterilization, or indirectly by transportation issues.

You are asked to identify a necessary assumption, so you should focus on the incomplete nature of the president's evidence.

Answer choice (A): Since a response about what occurs after sterilization is not relevant to the incomplete nature of the argument, this choice is wrong. Furthermore, the belief of the environmentalist group is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish what is the actual case.

Hello! I bolded the parts relevant to my question (above).

My question: In answer choice A, the explanation states, "Since a response about what occurs after sterilization is not relevant to the incomplete nature of the argument, this choice is wrong." However, it seems like the company president's argument rests on the idea that the waste after processing is sterile and thus will not cause any pollution. Do these two seem in conflict?

Hope you can help! Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The president's premises include that the sterilization will make the waste clean and non-polluting, and his argument does indeed rest on that. Our explanation that you cited isn't about whether that is true or not, but is about whether that answer choice addresses the gap in the argument, which is that there could be some opportunity for pollution before the waste is sterilized. Since it is only about what may or may not be true after sterilization, it fails to address that gap.

Another reason why answer A is incorrect is that the beliefs of the environmentalists are irrelevant, as are all beliefs. What matters are the facts - will there be a risk of pollution or won't there?

I'll add to our original explanation that the flaw is even bigger than just what might happen with the waste prior to sterilization. The author is saying that operation of the plant cannot cause ANY pollution. That means he assumes that the waste is the only possible source of pollution from the plant. But what if the plant uses cleaning chemicals that could seep into the water? What if the plant is heated by an inefficient coal furnace that spews pollutants into the air? What if...what if...what if...

And finally, the president has to assume that sterile, clean waste cannot by itself be a source of pollution. So, there is at least one assumption about what happens after the process is complete. Not a far-fetched assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Depends on what "pollution" is, I suppose - perhaps blobs of clean, sterile waste might start filling up our rivers and lakes, interfering with nests and breeding grounds and food chains, and that in itself is a type of pollution?

The president has to assume that there is no other possible source of pollution from the plant other than from waste after it has been processed. That's a mighty bold assumption!

[Jay]

Hi Powerscore,

I crossed out B because I was "Waste before treatment" is out of scope.

The stimulus in the first sentence just says that the plant treats "contaminated medical waste in a city neighborhood."

we don't know where that waste came from. it could have come from residents and environmental activists.

At any rate, the President is simply arguing that operation of the plant cannot cause pollution. I thought what happens before the operation is out of scope.

Please help!

[Adam Tyson]

I'm no fan of that phrase "out of scope," Jay - it has always struck me as a kind of lazy way that some courses dispose of wrong answers. It's like they are saying "I can't tell you why it's wrong, but it is, so just ignore it."

What makes an answer "out of scope" is that it talks about something that is new that is not relevant or not related to the topic at hand, and saying "that's not relevant" is, in my opinion, a much better explanation for why it's wrong. But here's the thing about many Assumption questions as well as all Weaken and Strengthen and Justify and Resolve questions - they all require new information, something that was not stated in the passage, in order to have an impact on the argument. That new thing could certainly seem "out of scope," but what if that new information actually matters? Every Defender Assumption (the ones where the answer fights off a possible line of attack) deals with something new!

Answer B is not about what happens to the waste before it is sent to the facility. It's about what happens before it is treated at the facility. It still has to be brought into the community, and then brought inside the plant, and then it may still have to be handled in some way to prepare it for treatment. The author must be assuming that in that time between when it enters the neighborhood and the time it is treated in the plant, nothing can go wrong that might hurt the environment. Try negating that answer, and you'll see that the negation absolutely destroys the argument!

If it helps, imagine the possibility that the waste has to be stored on site for 3 days prior to being treated. If it leaks from its storage container, then we could have a problem, despite the President's claims about what is true after the treatment is completed.

[Taisiya]

I've absorbed that answer E is wrong because the idea of "surest" aligns with "best" in an exaggeration to the idea of what is "guaranteed". However, wouldn't "ensure" and "guarantee" be considered too close in meaning and impact to pose an exaggeration or disproportionate quality (of something ideal/best) to one or the other? If E would have mentioned "best", I would probably understand its disqualification better/easier, yet because it says "surest", and the idea of something being "guaranteed" falls close with that - how can we detect exaggerations of these kinds in a manner that is "best" to "ensuring" we do so?:D


See what I did there? Sorry....couldn't help myself:)


Thank you!

[atierney]

Hi Taisiya,

You know, it took me a while actually. And honestly, while it could be me, it also could, just a little bit, be you as well. Answer choice E, in my estimation, is wrong because it is not an assumption required by the argument; in other words it is an irrelevant answer choice (according to my classification scheme), and should be "refused" in such a manner. (See what I did there??)

Now, in terms of why Answer Choice E is irrelevant, the argument is an attempt at persuading the residents and activists that the treatment poses no risk to the environment. And this is because of the fact that is a facility to clean waste, as per the argument. However, the argument does not rely upon the fact that it needs to be the surest method of sterilization, and the reason that this is the case is because we are bifurcating categories, not by rank in terms of safest to least safe, but rather safe or not. The idea is whether the facility poses a risk or not; it's yes or no, not noest, most no.

Hopefully that is clear. Remember this is a necessary assumption question. The idea is that you're asking a question akin to "will my car get me to the store reliably?"; certainly it's a good selling point to say that the car is the most reliable, but most cars are reliable; in fact most cars will drive themselves pretty soon I believe, so the relevance of being the "best," where the determining factor is adequacy, plainly and simply, is highly diminished.

Now, additionally, the problem here, which is the assumption required is that what the facility operates on is not the totality of the threat it presents. Mainly, the waste exuded from the waste facility could potentially pose a threat, as well as any handling of the waste it operates upon prior to operation, as mentioned in the correct answer choice B.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[TootyFrooty]

The president's premises include that the sterilization will make the waste clean and non-polluting, and his argument does indeed rest on that. Our explanation that you cited isn't about whether that is true or not, but is about whether that answer choice addresses the gap in the argument, which is that there could be some opportunity for pollution before the waste is sterilized. Since it is only about what may or may not be true after sterilization, it fails to address that gap.

Another reason why answer A is incorrect is that the beliefs of the environmentalists are irrelevant, as are all beliefs. What matters are the facts - will there be a risk of pollution or won't there?

I'll add to our original explanation that the flaw is even bigger than just what might happen with the waste prior to sterilization. The author is saying that operation of the plant cannot cause ANY pollution. That means he assumes that the waste is the only possible source of pollution from the plant. But what if the plant uses cleaning chemicals that could seep into the water? What if the plant is heated by an inefficient coal furnace that spews pollutants into the air? What if...what if...what if...

And finally, the president has to assume that sterile, clean waste cannot by itself be a source of pollution. So, there is at least one assumption about what happens after the process is complete. Not a far-fetched assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Depends on what "pollution" is, I suppose - perhaps blobs of clean, sterile waste might start filling up our rivers and lakes, interfering with nests and breeding grounds and food chains, and that in itself is a type of pollution?

The president has to assume that there is no other possible source of pollution from the plant other than from waste after it has been processed. That's a mighty bold assumption!

Piggybacking on your first paragraph here, I also was stuck between a and b, primarily because I pre phased that the pollution could be from the steam RELEASED into the environment, such as in the case of industrial manufacturing plants etc... can you clarify further please as to how to see this answer choice in its accurate essence, because clearly I was seeing it as something else.