Critical Reasoning

United Lumber will use trees from its forests for two products. The tree trunks will be used for lumber and the branches converted into wood chips to make fiberboard. The cost of this conversion would be the same whether done at the logging site, where the trees are debranched, or at United's factory. However, wood chips occupy less than half the volume of the branches from which they are made.

The information given, if accurate, most strongly supports which of the following?

(A) Converting the branches into wood chips at the logging site would require transporting a fully assembled wood-chipping machine to and from the site.
(B) It would be more economical to debranch the trees at the factory where the fiberboard is manufactured.
(C) The debranching of trees and the conversion of the branches into chips are the only stages in the processing of branches that it would be in United's economic advantage to perform at the logging site.
(D) Transportation costs from the logging site to the factory that are determined by volume of cargo would be lower if the conversion into chips is done at the logging site rather than at the factory.
(E) In the wood-processing industry, branches are used only for the production of wood chips for fiberboard.

[spoiler][spoiler]OA: later[/spoiler]

Please explain with logic. How to tackle this type of question?

Strongly support means which of the following can be concluded? Am I right? How to approach this type of questions? Is there any proved shortcut?

Thanks.[/spoiler]

should be D - less volume , will cost less to transport
A assembled wood-chipping machine can be done on site
B the premise directly says that the trees are debranched at the logging site
C "only" word leaves no other option
E - out of scope

Is there any one who will explain in more details?
Thanks.

gmat_perfect wrote:United Lumber will use trees from its forests for two products. The tree trunks will be used for lumber and the branches converted into wood chips to make fiberboard. The cost of this conversion would be the same whether done at the logging site, where the trees are debranched, or at United's factory. However, wood chips occupy less than half the volume of the branches from which they are made.

The conclusion is its gonna cost UL the same whether the conversion is done at factory or at the logging location itself.
A is way off target talking about the wood-chipping machine that was never discussed in the passage.
B we are concerned only with conversion from branches to wood chips.. N premise says that trees are debranched at logging site.
C. Nothing is given about processing of the braches...Also, only too strong a word..
E talks about wood processing industry when we are only concerned with UL.

D also mentions something not mentioned in the passage... Transportation costs...But if the transportation costs are not lower then d cost of conversion would not be same at two places...

This question was similar to the radio cost question in countries X and Y...

This was a Must be true question...
I did not read first properly and thought this one as Support the argument q...

Shortcut?? I dont think so..

The question ask what can be most strongly supported by the argument, in this case we need to find a statement that can be

a) logically inferred
b) is completely supported by argument w/o any help from the outside the passage

(A) Converting the branches into wood chips at the logging site would require transporting a fully assembled wood-chipping machine to and from the site. < not talk of machines >
(B) It would be more economical to debranch the trees at the factory where the fiberboard is manufactured. < does the argument support this? no>
(C) The debranching of trees and the conversion of the branches into chips are the only stages in the processing of branches that it would be in United's economic advantage to perform at the logging site. <there is not talk about stages>
(D) Transportation costs from the logging site to the factory that are determined by volume of cargo would be lower if the conversion into chips is done at the logging site rather than at the factory. <we can infer that if volume is reduced then more stuff can be taken in fewer trips>
(E) In the wood-processing industry, branches are used only for the production of wood chips for fiberboard. <nice insight but not useful>

Shortcut : practice too many CR questions so the most common patterns become easy for you to catch.

indiantiger wrote:The question ask what can be most strongly supported by the argument, in this case we need to find a statement that can be

a) logically inferred
b) is completely supported by argument w/o any help from the outside the passage

(A) Converting the branches into wood chips at the logging site would require transporting a fully assembled wood-chipping machine to and from the site. < not talk of machines >
(B) It would be more economical to debranch the trees at the factory where the fiberboard is manufactured. < does the argument support this? no>
(C) The debranching of trees and the conversion of the branches into chips are the only stages in the processing of branches that it would be in United's economic advantage to perform at the logging site. <there is not talk about stages>
(D) Transportation costs from the logging site to the factory that are determined by volume of cargo would be lower if the conversion into chips is done at the logging site rather than at the factory. <we can infer that if volume is reduced then more stuff can be taken in fewer trips>
(E) In the wood-processing industry, branches are used only for the production of wood chips for fiberboard. <nice insight but not useful>

Shortcut : practice too many CR questions so the most common patterns become easy for you to catch.

Thanks.