Critical Reasoning

Many consumers are concerned about the ecological effects of wasteful packaging. This concern probably explains why stores have been quick to stock new cleaning products that have been produced in a concentrated form. The concentrated form is packaged in smaller containers that use less plastic and require less transportation space.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation offered above?
(A) Few consumers believe that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products.
(B) The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are no harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged.
(C) Those concentrated cleaning products that are intended to be used diluted have clear instructions for dilution printed on their labels.
(D) The smaller containers of concentrated cleaning products enable supermarkets and drugstores to increase their revenues from a given shelf space.
(E) Consumer pressure has led to the elimination of wasteful cardboard packaging that was used for compact discs.

The way to "undermine the explanation offered above" is to look for an answer choice that suggests some other explanation (other than stores' respect for consumers' environmental concerns) for why they are using small packaging.

...what answer choice suggests another explanation?

D suggests another explanation
Testluv , since E talks of another example that has not been mentioned in the Stimulus. Is E irrelevant or doe E strengthen the conclusion

mundasingh123 wrote:D suggests another explanation
Testluv , since E talks of another example that has not been mentioned in the Stimulus. Is E irrelevant or doe E strengthen the conclusion

That's a great question. Choice E will actually strengthen the argument...why?

Testluv wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:D suggests another explanation
Testluv , since E talks of another example that has not been mentioned in the Stimulus. Is E irrelevant or doe E strengthen the conclusion

That's a great question. Choice E will actually strengthen the argument...why?

Because E gives another Example of how much concerned consumers are about wasteful packaging which is why they have asked stores to eliminate wasteful cardboard packaging . But the evidence given in the stimulus talks of plastic packaging.
So does it mean , introducing a new example in the answer choice can also strengthen the conclusion as is the case here

IMO B

The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are no harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged.

If thats true that there is no use of making concentrated cleaning products.Their manufacturing will have same ecological effect.

mundasingh123 wrote:

Testluv wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:D suggests another explanation
Testluv , since E talks of another example that has not been mentioned in the Stimulus. Is E irrelevant or doe E strengthen the conclusion

That's a great question. Choice E will actually strengthen the argument...why?

Because E gives another Example of how much concerned consumers are about wasteful packaging which is why they have asked stores to eliminate wasteful cardboard packaging . But the evidence given in the stimulus talks of plastic packaging.
So does it mean , introducing a new example in the answer choice can also strengthen the conclusion as is the case here

So long as the example in the answer choice parallels that in the stimulus. To confirm that (E) strengthens, why don't you give (E) the denial test, and see what happens to the argument?

So, what is the denial of (E)? Does this denied (E) weaken the argument? If so, then what does that mean about original (E)?

E) because of CONSUMER PRESSURE the results of small package is possible
D) No it is not consumer pressure but manufacturer on his own interst for profit made the change.

abhishekpandey2002 wrote:Many consumers are concerned about the ecological effects of wasteful packaging. This concern probably explains why stores have been quick to stock new cleaning products that have been produced in a concentrated form. The concentrated form is packaged in smaller containers that use less plastic and require less transportation space.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation offered above?
(A) Few consumers believe that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products.
(B) The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are no harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged.
(C) Those concentrated cleaning products that are intended to be used diluted have clear instructions for dilution printed on their labels.
(D) The smaller containers of concentrated cleaning products enable supermarkets and drugstores to increase their revenues from a given shelf space.
(E) Consumer pressure has led to the elimination of wasteful cardboard packaging that was used for compact discs.

OA Please? B/D? IMO D

IMO (D)

(A) Few consumers believe that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products. --> Point here is not about few consumers' beliefs.

(B) The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are no harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged. --> out of scope. at best strengthens.

(C) Those concentrated cleaning products that are intended to be used diluted have clear instructions for dilution printed on their labels. --> instructions, labels - who cares?

(D) The smaller containers of concentrated cleaning products enable supermarkets and drugstores to increase their revenues from a given shelf space. --> points out a different reason to the compacting of containers. It isn't about the recycling/consumer pressure honey. It's merely about the money.

(E) Consumer pressure has led to the elimination of wasteful cardboard packaging that was used for compact discs. --> At best, Strengthens - consumer pressure had done something, implying that it is consumer pressure again.