Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

(B) Other means of disposing of chemical waste, such as chemical neutralization processes, have not been proven safer than incineration.

(C) The capacity of existing incinerators is sufficient to allow for increased incineration of chemical waste without any need for new incinerators.

(D) The frequency of reports of unexpected releases of chemical agents at newly built incinerators is about the same as the frequency at older incinerators.

(E) ln only three of the reported incidents of unexpected chemical leaks did the releases extend outside the property on which the incinerators were located.

Option A is correct.

At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

Explanation:

The main aim of the argument presented is to talk down the use of burning by incinerators method to dispose chemical waste. The argument presents great points in that there were 40 incidents at two existing commissioned incinerators in the last year where unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents happened.

So, basically, the argument is all about how the high frequency of the unsuspected release of dangerous chemical agents should discourage this method of chemical waste disposal.

The argument then concluded that if more chemical waste are disposed using the burning by incinerator method, there will be more unsuspected release of dangerous chemicals.

We are then required to find the statement that most weakens the conclusion that there will be more toxic releases if more chemical waste are burned.

Analysing the Statements one by one

Statement A

This statement provides a possible reason for this high frequency of dangerous chemical releases. It states that the staff haven't been properly trained. So, this means that properly training the staff should most likely lead to lesser cases of toxic releases into the environment.

This is the statement that most weakens the conclusion.

Statement B

The conclusion wasn't about the incinerator method being the safest method. It was about whether increased incineration would lead to more toxic relaeses. So, this doesn't affect the conclusion.

Statement C

This statement says that incineration can be increased without building new incinerators by tapping into unused capacity at the old incinerators. Also doesn't affect rhe conclusion whether increased use of incineration will lead to more toxic leaks.

Statement D

This statement strengthens the argument; which is the opposite of what we're aiming to achieve.

Statement E

This statement hints that the toxic leaks do not have that much of a harmful effect because the toxic releases do not go beyond the property of the incinerator. This also doesnt tackle the conclusion about the frequency of leaks, it only addresses how not harmful the toxic leaks can be.

Hope this Helps!!!

може ли да зареждате повече информация, моля