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?


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

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

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

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

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

加入错题本 分享
纠错
考题讲解

情景：增加焚烧是处理化学废料的一种方法。但反对者说去年有40种物质被违规释放了。因为新设计的焚烧厂家没有增加额外的防止这种泄露的方法，更多东西被焚烧只能增加泄露。

推理：本题中只有最后两句话是有用的。由于前提和结论讲的是两件事情，且结论是果，所以本题为因果推理。
顺序的因果逻辑：因为新设计的焚烧厂家没有增加额外的防止这种泄露的方法，所以更多东西被焚烧只能增加泄露
（因）前提：新设计的焚烧厂家没有增加额外的防止这种泄露的方法
（果）结论：更多东西被焚烧只能增加泄露

选题方式：因果推理只有一个评估方向，简而言之，即，反驳推理文段中的结论。

选项分析：

A选项： Correct. 在两个发生泄露的焚烧厂中，员工们仅仅接受了粗略的焚烧步骤训练。如果是本选项所描述的这样，那么更多的新焚烧厂的设立是有助于减少泄露的（因为新的焚烧厂可能具有良好的训练）

B选项：其它的处理化学废料的方式并没有被证明比焚烧更加安全。本选项和推理文段的结论无关。

C选项：在不添加新的焚化炉的基础上，现有的焚化炉已经足以承担增多的化学废料的焚烧工作。无论是否需要增加焚化炉，只要化学废料增多，就依然会增加泄露，无法反驳结论。

D选项：新的焚烧厂泄露的频率和老焚烧厂的频率相同。若新焚烧厂泄露的频率更低，则可以在一定程度上反驳结论，因此，本选项加强的推理文段。

E选项：只有三次报告的泄露事件真正的让泄露辐射的地区超过了焚烧厂的位置的范围。结论讨论的是泄露量而不是泄露范围。

展开显示

登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2019-CR
考点