"pour" or "dump"

[LeTyan]

Hi,

___ into oceans and rivers is a serious form of pollution.

A. Pouring sewage
B. Throwing garbage
C. Dumping sewage
D. Emptying litter

Please tell me which is the answer you pick and why you believe it is better than others

Thanks!

 

[Amigos4]

Hi,

___ into oceans and rivers is a serious form of pollution.

A. Pouring sewage
B. Throwing garbage
C. Dumping sewage
D. Emptying litter

Please tell me which is the answer you pick and why you believe it is better than others

Thanks!

Which answer do you pick? Tell us why and we'll be happy to let you know what we think. ;-)

 

[LeTyan]

As a non-native speaker of English, I have heard "pour... into" "dump ....into" "throw..in/into". So I would say A, B,C are all workable answers. But the given answer is C. I don't understand why it is better

 

[Amigos4]

As a non-native speaker of English, I have heard "pour... into" "dump ....into" "throw..in/into". So I would say A, B,C are all workable answers. But the given answer is C. I don't understand why it is better

As a native speaker, I think A, B, C, and D are all valid sentences. My guess is that because oceans and rivers are being used as dumps/landfills, the sewage is being dumped into the water. I think the question you were asked to answer is poorly stated because more than one correct answer is possible.

 

[Tdol]

I agree- it's not a good question. C is the most natural to me, but there are other possibilities.

 

[Raymott]

I never thought of emptying sewage into the ocean as a serious form of pollution. Don't whales and fish defecate? Aren't animal excretions a source of nutrition for the ocean's plants, which account for 85% of the earth's plant biomass?
On the other hand, you'd have to consider what's in the 'garbage' and 'litter' and how much was put into the sea before being able to answer that question. Plastic bags do the environment no good at all. It's not an English question.

 

[konungursvia]

I never thought of emptying sewage into the ocean as a serious form of pollution. Don't whales and fish defecate? Aren't animal excretions a source of nutrition for the ocean's plants, which account for 85% of the earth's plant biomass?
On the other hand, you'd have to consider what's in the 'garbage' and 'litter' and how much was put into the sea before being able to answer that question. Plastic bags do the environment no good at all. It's not an English question.

I think it's a question of local concentration. If every human were swimming in a different area of the sea, and defecated at will, there may be no problem. But if a city of ten million dumps all of its sewage (and dumps are raw and untreated in most cities after heavy rain) you've essentially got a major 'infection' at a particular location, which can make others ill (humans and wildlife). So it needs to be managed.

 

[Gillnetter]

I never thought of emptying sewage into the ocean as a serious form of pollution. Don't whales and fish defecate? Aren't animal excretions a source of nutrition for the ocean's plants, which account for 85% of the earth's plant biomass?
On the other hand, you'd have to consider what's in the 'garbage' and 'litter' and how much was put into the sea before being able to answer that question. Plastic bags do the environment no good at all. It's not an English question.

Whether to use "emptying" or "dumping", in regards to allowing sewage to be put into the ocean, seems to be a matter of perspective. The southern beaches of the San Diego, California area are routinely closed because of high bacteria levels. Sewage does not only consist of human waste, it also includes various chemicals and other waste from industry. The villain here is water coming out of the Mexican city of Tijuana. The Tijuana River flows across the international border into the ocean and is emptied/discharged/dumped on the US side. If scientists are talking about this problem, they say that the contaminated water is "discharged". If a conservative politician is speaking of the problem, he/she will say that the water is "dumped". A geography textbook will probably use the word "emptied".

 

[Raymott]

I think it's a question of local concentration. If every human were swimming in a different area of the sea, and defecated at will, there may be no problem. But if a city of ten million dumps all of its sewage (and dumps are raw and untreated in most cities after heavy rain) you've essentially got a major 'infection' at a particular location, which can make others ill (humans and wildlife). So it needs to be managed.

Exactly. I think we agree, though, that it's a question of where to place the effluent rather than where to place an adverb, for example.
If all four choices included "sewage", at least it would be an English question - not a good one, but at least one in which the student had to choose the appropriate verb.

 

[konungursvia]

I agree, but would add that the difference in verb probably is intended to relate to a presumed knowledge of what *hit is coming from the sewers. If it's a colloidal suspension, I'd say 'dump' is much better than pour. If it's really a liquid, pour is probably better. I'm not sure it's an English language question though, but one of culture or general education (I remember a story of an Entire class of Saudi ESL students choosing "B. Bad weather" to describe a picture of the sun overhead with kids playing beneath).

 

[SoothingDave]

As a native speaker, I think A, B, C, and D are all valid sentences. My guess is that because oceans and rivers are being used as dumps/landfills, the sewage is being dumped into the water. I think the question you were asked to answer is poorly stated because more than one correct answer is possible.

I don't see how "emptying litter" makes any sense.