Critical Reasoning

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

A. The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
B. The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
C. Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
D.Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
E. When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut.


Hi all,

I found this CR question (from Princeton Review GMAT Test 10) a bit confusing for me. The correct answer is C. Can someone please explain the difference between choice A and choice C? What is the thing makes C but not A the best explanation?

Thx for your time in advance,
Victoria

The problem with this question (and others of its type) is usually that the person does not clearly understand what is being asked. Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that you want to make paper. The question you are asking yourself is whether it is better to use recycled materials or new materials to do so. We will assume that concerns about the environment are irrelevant to you and that the only guiding principle you have is the price.

This price, stated in the argument as the "point of price viability" was $2.12 per ream (500 sheets) of paper 20 years ago. By this we mean that if the price is $2.11 we should use new paper whereas if the price is $2.13 then we should use recycled paper.

Since that time, it has become less expensive to make recycled paper. Accordingly, one might expect that the "point of price viability" has changed. In reality, however, it is unchanged.

How can we explain this? Undoubtedly it has also become cheaper to make new paper products. One of the choices will clearly show that.

Answer choice A may seem tempting. However, this answer choice doesn't definitely say that it is cheaper to produce paper products. Choice Adoes say that the cost of unprocessed trees has fallen, but we cannot conclude from that alone that it is less expensive now than it used to be to make new paper products.

Answer choice C, on the other hand, clearly states that it is now more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

You might also want to take a look at the thread https://www.beatthegmat.com/economic-via ... 87674.html