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.
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
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论