扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATAdvanced-CR-18
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging—specifically, paper and cardboard packaging—for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.
P package含有D
C 减少package能够减少D
A：垃圾燃烧产生D，package包含D，package减少，D减少；但是A指出燃烧垃圾时，其中有大量的package，释放的热量能够破坏D的蛋白质，减少D
所以减少了package并不一定能够达成减少D的目标，即削弱
蛋白质是protein 看错了吧兄弟
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
这题就难在A本身也不是很强的削弱项
逻辑链是 事实：垃圾烧了产生二恶英;regulation：paper package包含二恶英，package减少，二恶英就减少
A：package本身烧了也产不出多少二恶英，而有没有package，并不会影响到垃圾烧了产出的二恶英的数量变化
所以package减少并不一定会影响到二恶英的减少，所以二恶英不一定会减少=削弱二恶英会减少
不过无论如何我觉得这样的解释还是有些牵强
手段目的题
P 减少包装
G 减少D
Gap 减少包装的副作用，减少包装对于达到目的的可行性
A 减少包装并不能减少D，因为本来烧包装就不会产生D（质疑方案可行性）
B 包装占比很少（包装占比很少，但是仍旧可以减少D，con里面并没有提到减少D的程度，所以只要减少了，就是符合结论的，不能削弱）而且weight，volume题干中都没有涉及
C rural 和 urban进行无关对比
方案推理，三个方向：1. 可行性， 2. 可操作性，3. 副作用，另外，凡是提出新方案的都不是选项。
题目论点：减少包装（尤其是纸的和硬壳纸板的包装）能减少dioxin。
A 质疑方案能不能达到目标：因为纸的焚烧并不会产生有毒气体，所以减少包装并不能减少dioxin。
A项
Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
含有大量纸张和硬纸板的垃圾很容易燃烧到一个温度，这个温度足以使其中的部分二恶英被销毁。
A：含有纸板的生活垃圾在燃烧的时候温度足够高，可以把dioxins破坏掉，就不会释放到空气中了
取消掉纸质包装，会使得燃烧温度不够，反而还把垃圾里的dioxins释放出来
所以取消纸质包装并不是一个根本的解决方法
这表明含有大量纸张和纸板的垃圾会烧掉一些二恶英。因此，含有较少纸张和纸板的垃圾可能不会燃烧得足够热，因此所有的二恶英都会释放到空气中。它确实比较了当前的二恶英水平和监管后可能的水平。我们不知道更少的纸量是否会弥补所有二恶英的释放，但它肯定让我们怀疑我们的结论。它质疑我们的结论。
A也只是解决了portion of the dioxins，不一定比禁止使用更好啊
This says that garbage containing lot of paper and cardboard burns away some dioxins. So possibly, garbage containing less paper and cardboard will not burn hot enough and hence all dioxins will get released in the air. It does compare current situation of dioxin levels with possible levels after regulation. We don't know whether the lower amount of paper will make up for releasing all dioxins but it certainly makes us doubt our conclusion. It questions our conclusion.
thanks!!!!!
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
suppose for some reason burning large
amounts of paper and cardboard containing dioxins actually—however
counterintuitively—leads to a reduction in the amount of dioxins that pollute
the environment. This would indicate a major weakness in the argument.
cr
错在长难句没读懂，分解句子结构，搞清楚谁在形容谁；去掉修饰成分
Garbage（ containing large quantities of paper and cardboard ）can easily burn hot （enough） for （some portion of the dioxins ）that it contains（ to be destroyed.） 摧毁dioxin中的一些portion
Right understand packaging!
B错选 packaging material占household garbage很小的一部分，但是有可能其他的household garbage燃烧时都不会出现dioxin啊
A. Correct. This claim tells us that garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard burns at such a high temperature that a portion of the dioxins in the garbage is destroyed. If so, then reducing quantities of paper and cardboard in burned garbage might in fact increase dioxin pollution, not reduce it, despite the fact that paper and cardboard packaging contains dioxins.