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.
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。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论