Top Law Schools

For those of you who have done this problem....

I have trouble understanding why choice A is Least relevent (and so Correct).

Isn't it reasonable to assume that Sewage Sludge is dumped anyway - ie in Sewers or where it would be dumped before this technology?

Quick Silver wrote:For those of you who have done this problem....

I have trouble understanding why choice A is Least relevent (and so Correct).

Isn't it reasonable to assume that Sewage Sludge is dumped anyway - ie in Sewers or where it would be dumped before this technology?

B is the correct answer

In order to figure out which consideration is LEAST relevant in evaluating the degree of practicability, you need to eliminate those that are relevant.

Remember there is a technology being DEVELOPED (meaning it wasn't around before) that turns at least some of the sewage sludge into oil that can be used for power.

Looking at option A, let's assume that the current methods of disposing sewage sludge by dumping do extreme environmental damage. If they do, then if this new developed technology were to be implemented, then at least SOME of the sewage that would have been dumped will have instead been turned into oil, thus lowering the environmental impact to some degree.

The degree is irrelevant, but as long as it is lowered at all from how it was before the technology was implemented, then option A is relevant to evaluating the degree of practicability of the hope expressed by the activist, and it is therefore incorrect.

dontdoitkid wrote:In order to figure out which consideration is LEAST relevant in evaluating the degree of practicability, you need to eliminate those that are relevant.

Remember there is a technology being DEVELOPED (meaning it wasn't around before) that turns at least some of the sewage sludge into oil that can be used for power.

Looking at option A, let's assume that the current methods of disposing sewage sludge by dumping do extreme environmental damage. If they do, then if this new developed technology were to be implemented, then at least SOME of the sewage that would have been dumped will have instead been turned into oil, thus lowering the environmental impact to some degree.

The degree is irrelevant, but as long as it is lowered at all from how it was before the technology was implemented, then option A is relevant to evaluating the degree of practicability of the hope expressed by the activist, and it is therefore incorrect.

I think op just read their answer sheet wrong

I guess I just take A as "too warranted" an assumption.... I mean let's face it, humans produce sewage every day - every one of us - so it seems like a moot point even if it does do environmental harm - we can't not go to the bathroom... so this stuff may cause environmental harm no matter what we do with it - at least this technology will use some sewage to do something good...

dontdoitkid wrote:In order to figure out which consideration is LEAST relevant in evaluating the degree of practicability, you need to eliminate those that are relevant.

Remember there is a technology being DEVELOPED (meaning it wasn't around before) that turns at least some of the sewage sludge into oil that can be used for power.

Looking at option A, let's assume that the current methods of disposing sewage sludge by dumping do extreme environmental damage. If they do, then if this new developed technology were to be implemented, then at least SOME of the sewage that would have been dumped will have instead been turned into oil, thus lowering the environmental impact to some degree.

The degree is irrelevant, but as long as it is lowered at all from how it was before the technology was implemented, then option A is relevant to evaluating the degree of practicability of the hope expressed by the activist, and it is therefore incorrect.