#16 - Zebra mussels, a nuisance when they clog the intake pipes of nuclear power

[tetsuya0129]

Hi Powerscore staff,

This question really annihilated me. About (E), I can comprehend the first part could be supported since if they don't transform the waste, then it's reasonable to infer that the waste will remain in the mussels. Yet, I couldn't possibly figure out how the latter part "they must then be regarded as hazardous waste" can even be remotely supported. It's like saying that one component (the waste) of an entity (mussel) can decide what the entity should be regarded.

Could you help explain this bizzare question? Thank you!
Leon

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Leon,

First remember that this is a "most strongly supported" question, so the answer choice gets a little more leeway than we'd be able to give it on an absolute "must be true" question. Next, remember that you have very good reasons to eliminate all of answer choices A through D (A, because of the new information about arrival; B, because of the new information about the Mississippi River and clams and pearls; C, because it's too exaggerated and something could be a "nuisance" even if there's a mechanical means to clear it out; and D, because algae in the stimulus is only discussed in context of discharge from chemical plants, not in context of the intake pipes of nuclear power/water plants).

The ending of answer choice E is supported by the mere fact that the mussels do remove some hazardous wastes, so if they retain those wastes without transforming them, it's reasonable to suppose that they would be contaminated and regarded as hazardous waste. Is that a part-whole error? I don't know, but consider a hypothetical scenario to try to resolve that issue. What happens, say, if you have a bowl of oatmeal that someone drops a little bit of nuclear waste into? Is it reasonable to conclude that the oatmeal is contaminated? I'd say yes, and I wouldn't think twice about whether that was a part-whole error. The same goes for the scenario being described here. You have plenty of easy reasons to get rid of answer choices A through D, and you can validate answer choice E with just a drop of interpretive flexibility (which is fine on a "most strongly supported" type of question). Pick E and run with it!

Let me know if that clears it up!

[tetsuya0129]

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you so much for walking me through your thought process. This incredibly helps me to examine my own strategy and modify it accordingly.

I like your example: " What happens, say, if you have a bowl of oatmeal that someone drops a little bit of nuclear waste into? Is it reasonable to conclude that the oatmeal is contaminated?" I would say based on the logic of (E), one might instead conclude the oatmeal must be regarded as nuclear waste. I can eventually settle with it because I know that my interpretation of "regard" was too stringent; I thought the term is similar to define. But the dictionary definition is "consider or think of in a specified way." Applying this definition to the conclusion, then the statement seems much supportable.

So thank you, again, for helping me to clear it up!
Leon