-
Soumita Ghosh
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:09 am•Followed by: 7 members
- Thanked: 1 times
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Economic Benefit
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
-
Bill@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1248
- Location: Everywhere
- Thanked: 503 times
- GMAT Score:780
B works because it provides a reason that the savings in weight is significant. It tells us that there is an inverse relationship between weight and mileage; that is, mileage decreases as weight increases and vice versa. Thus, saving 20 pounds per tire will help save money on fuel by increasing mileage.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays
Visit the Veritas Prep Blog
Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Visit the Veritas Prep Blog
Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Whenever you're asked to support a particular conclusion, you want to think about what information is missing - what logical gaps exist - between the premises and the conclusion.
Premise:
New tires cost more than old tires, even though they weigh less.
Conclusion we want to support:
New tires will nonetheless be economically beneficial
Whenever you're asked to consider economic benefit on CR, we want to consider that profit = revenue - costs. Since it's unlikely that tires will affect the revenue of the company, we probably want to consider the various costs involved. We're given one piece of information about cost as it relates to tires - how much they cost to produce. But is that the only cost involved? What about how often we have to purchase them, how much they cost to maintain, etc, etc.
Logical Gap:
Is there some other way that the new tires could lower costs?
A. The fact that old tires will go out of production in 10 years does not mean that new ones are more cost-effective in the present.
B. If the tires weigh less, the whole truck will weigh less (all else being equal), so fuel costs will be lower on the new tires. CORRECT
C. This would weaken - it's an increased cost for new tires
D. The fact that it's designed for extreme conditions does not mean that it will be more cost-effective in real-world conditions.
E. This doesn't weaken the conclusion, but it doesn't exactly strengthen, either. It's saying - there won't be any increase in training or equipment costs. But to support our conclusion, we need to know that there's a decrease in some other cost.
Premise:
New tires cost more than old tires, even though they weigh less.
Conclusion we want to support:
New tires will nonetheless be economically beneficial
Whenever you're asked to consider economic benefit on CR, we want to consider that profit = revenue - costs. Since it's unlikely that tires will affect the revenue of the company, we probably want to consider the various costs involved. We're given one piece of information about cost as it relates to tires - how much they cost to produce. But is that the only cost involved? What about how often we have to purchase them, how much they cost to maintain, etc, etc.
Logical Gap:
Is there some other way that the new tires could lower costs?
A. The fact that old tires will go out of production in 10 years does not mean that new ones are more cost-effective in the present.
B. If the tires weigh less, the whole truck will weigh less (all else being equal), so fuel costs will be lower on the new tires. CORRECT
C. This would weaken - it's an increased cost for new tires
D. The fact that it's designed for extreme conditions does not mean that it will be more cost-effective in real-world conditions.
E. This doesn't weaken the conclusion, but it doesn't exactly strengthen, either. It's saying - there won't be any increase in training or equipment costs. But to support our conclusion, we need to know that there's a decrease in some other cost.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
