Hull boats

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:25 am
Location: New York, US

Hull boats

by slash » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:38 am
At an enormous research cost, a leading chemical company has developed a manufacturing process for converting wood fibers into a plastic. According to the company, this new plastic can be used for, among other things, the hulls of small sailboats. But what does the company think sailboat hulls used to be made of? Surely the mania for high technology can scarcely go further than this.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s conclusion?
(A) The plastic produced by the process is considerably lighter, stronger, and more watertight than wood.
(B) The wood used in producing the plastic is itself in increasingly short supply.
(C) The cost of the manufacturing process of the plastic increases the cost of producing a sailboat hull by 10 to 15 percent.
(D) Much of the cost of the research that developed the new process will be written off for tax purposes by the chemical company.
(E) The development of the new plastic is expected to help make the chemical company an important supplier of boat-building materials.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:34 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Thanked: 9 times

by Tryingmybest » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:09 am
I would go with E

We need to picksomething which weakens the statement "the mania for high technology can scarcely go further than this"
Since E states something opposing the conclusion I picked E . Key word is "expected to " which implies "it can go beyond" opposing the conclusion.

OA plz.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:25 am
Location: New York, US

by slash » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:38 am
Even I got the option E but the OA is A

Source 1000 CR

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:34 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Thanked: 9 times

by Tryingmybest » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:43 am
"But what does the company think sailboat hulls used to be made of?" means plastic was always used .

Choice A brings use of wood into the argument .This is out of scope to me.

Gurus Please explain why The answer is A and why is E incorrect.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by gmat009 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:33 am
A is not out of scope. If you read last line carefully you will know A is the answer

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:21 am
i was just wondering ...
how is it possible the same question and taken from the same source can have different answer choices...
:?

https://www.beatthegmat.com/cost-made-of-t13983.html

guys,
its better if we practise some genuine material...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:30 pm
Thanked: 16 times

by amitabhprasad » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:12 am
The conclusion of the argument is
Hulls are made up of plastics and investement in newely developed plastics is futile.
To weaken this conclusion we should show newly developed plastics are superior to the ones used at present.
And 'A' clearly states that

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:34 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Thanked: 9 times

by Tryingmybest » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:09 am
amitabhprasad -- You nailed it !!!

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:16 am
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:710

by muzali » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:01 pm
raunekk wrote:i was just wondering ...
how is it possible the same question and taken from the same source can have different answer choices...
:?

https://www.beatthegmat.com/cost-made-of-t13983.html

guys,
its better if we practise some genuine material...
The topic is the same but the questions asked are different. The answer choices are different too. So both the posts are fine.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: NY and Boston
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:16 members

by Karen » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:36 pm
The answer is A. The argument is saying that it's ridiculous to think it's a great step forward to be able to make boat hulls out of plastic which is made from wood. The question "What did boat hulls use to be made of?" is reminding the reader that boat hulls were traditionally made from wood (think of the hundreds of years of wooden sailing ships exploring the world). The implication is that it's silly to add the extra step of converting the wood into plastic. Just build the boats out of wood and save all that extra work.

The best way to refute the argument is to show that there's a distinct advantage to making the wood into plastic before using it to make the boat hulls, rather than simply building boat hulls out of wood. A accomplishes this.
Karen van Hoek, PhD
Verbal Specialist

Test Prep New York
maximize your score, minimize your stress
www.testprepny.com
[email protected]

Legendary Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:59 am
Location: USA
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:1 members

by niraj_a » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:16 am
A for sure, conclusion is the last line. A proves that that particular tech innovation is not BS.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:58 am

by vanessa.m » Fri May 13, 2016 1:51 am
Guys can anyone give a decent reason why E is not right.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

by nicolette » Fri May 13, 2016 1:52 am
I would go with option A as the correct option