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.
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
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论