Geologist: A geological fault in the mountain under which the proposed nuclear waste storage facility would be buried could, after a few thousand years, cause the contents to seep out or water to seep in. Since nuclear waste remains dangerous for up to 25,000 years, such seepage would be disastrous. So we should not place a nuclear waste storage facility under this mountain until scientists investigate whether this mountain has any geological faults.

Summarize Argument
The geologist concludes scientists must investigate the mountain for geological faults before a nuclear waste storage facility is built there. Why? Because a fault could allow waste to leak out or water to seep in while the nuclear waste is still dangerous, a disastrous circumstance.

Notable Assumptions
The geologist assumes waiting to build the facility until the study is completed poses no greater risk than building the facility before the study. She assumes scientists will be able to tell, upon investigation, whether the mountain has a dangerous fault.

A
In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests a disaster caused by leakage or seepage could have lesser consequences in the future—because no humans would be left to suffer those consequences.
B
The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
This supports the geologist’s assumption that a scientific study would be able to detect a geological fault in the mountain. It rules out the possibility that such a study would be inconclusive, and thus unhelpful.
C
The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication the facility’s original purpose would affect the potential consequences of a nuclear accident or increase the ability of scientists to detect a geological fault.
D
The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
If anything, this weakens the argument. If cost is an issue, it’s a reason not to conduct the study, and if cost is no issue, it’s irrelevant.
E
Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests there’s some chance nuclear waste will only be stored in this facility temporarily, which would lessen the chances of a nuclear disaster caused by a geological fault.

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

4 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

1 comment

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this