Q9 - To allay public concern about chemicals

[chike_eze]

Correct (C)
Question type: Weaken

Public is concerned about leaking chemicals into river from Company X long-established dump.
Company rep to public: Don't worry about the leak. Federal law mandates that all chemicals be tested for safety before being released to the public.

Implication: Even though chemicals are leaking into the river, the chemicals are safe. Public should not be concerned.

C) Implication: The federal law is new and may not have been in place to test Company X leaking chemical -- which may be dangerous.

Wrong:
A) Delay to entry of lifesaving -- this is irrelevant to the issue
B) leakage only in last few months -- not sure that this strengthens or weakens. Irrelevant
D) Diluted in concentration -- strengthens maybe, or does not
E) murky water --some explanation about why people may be concerned. Irrelevant

I feel like my wrong explanations are weak. Please expand on my wrong answers.

[timmydoeslsat]

This set up had me immediately thinking about how this argument fails to consider the mixing of chemicals. The test writers did not go this route, but I would estimate 90% they do test this idea in this kind of structure.

We know that every single chemical is now tested and it is safe if it is used on the market. This does not rule out the possibility that you could have 3 separately safe chemicals that could be combined to form a really unsafe chemical. This is a kind of part to whole flaw.

Instead this argument gives us strictly pharm. substance safety information. What about non-pharm substances? Answer choice C gives us that consideration.