BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

No single company

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

No single company

by paes » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:08 pm
No single company can afford to stop polluting. Many company leaders would like to slow the rate at which their plants pollute the environment, but fear that any expense, unilaterally incurred, will cripple their companies in a competitive market, because polluting companies have lower production costs than do companies that limit pollution.

If all of the information in the above passage is true, then, of the options below, the best way to encourage companies to reduce the amount of pollutants they introduce into the environment would be to


(A) provide significant tax credits to companies that install and maintain equipment that reduces the emission of pollutants
(B) develop new technology that would be more effective in cutting dangerous industrial emissions
(C) point out that advertising costs for polluting companies are higher, since such companies must combat the negative publicity they incur
(D) establish an award for executives of the companies that limit pollution
( E) fine companies that misrepresent to the government the amount of pollutants the company introduces into the environment

[spoiler]Source Princeton Test
Please explain A and C

[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:33 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by vijaynaik » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:40 pm
A.

Since the companies fear the expenses, giving tax credits would be the best deal for companies so that they don't have to fear the expenses and try to reduce the pollutants.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:29 pm
IMO C, you don't know whether companies are already getting tax benefits. A is shell game.

Let's say there are 2 companies X and Y.

X emits more pollutants and Y less.
X spends less, Y spends more.

Let's say X spends 100K and saves 100K in populating pollutants. and Y spends 200K overall.

What if X is spending 150K other than 100K in advertising cost? then total X spend is $250K. However, X is not counting that money. If we show X that $150K is additional advertising cost and if you install emission control measures then you will actually spend $100K more rather than $150K. Then total will be $200K, which is same as Y.

So C is good. OA please
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:03 pm
paes wrote:No single company can afford to stop polluting. Many company leaders would like to slow the rate at which their plants pollute the environment, but fear that any expense, unilaterally incurred, will cripple their companies in a competitive market, because polluting companies have lower production costs than do companies that limit pollution.

If all of the information in the above passage is true, then, of the options below, the best way to encourage companies to reduce the amount of pollutants they introduce into the environment would be to


(A) provide significant tax credits to companies that install and maintain equipment that reduces the emission of pollutants
(B) develop new technology that would be more effective in cutting dangerous industrial emissions
(C) point out that advertising costs for polluting companies are higher, since such companies must combat the negative publicity they incur
(D) establish an award for executives of the companies that limit pollution
( E) fine companies that misrepresent to the government the amount of pollutants the company introduces into the environment

[spoiler]Source Princeton Test
Please explain A and C
[/spoiler]
is that A the answer?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:59 pm
OA is A.


diebeatsthegmat@ and vijay@

Please explain how to get rid of C.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
Location: Chennai,India
Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:23 pm
After going through the answers, we would narrow it down to 'A' & 'C'. Of these two choices, 'A' is the best.

In order to chose 'C', we need to know the spend on advt. by the various polluting companies. It is possible that the less polluting company might be spending more on advt. than the greater polluting company. For such a scenario , 'C' doesn't help.

You don't have any such negative points in 'A'. Chose 'A'.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:03 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by vishalj » Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:39 pm
Thanks Paes for this question. It took me a while to classify the question. And I am still not sure if I am correct. I believe that it is a strengthen question. And guys let me know if I am wrong.

It can't be the main point question since all answer choices are having new information. And intially I thought that it was not a strengthen question, because the question starts with "the above passage is true", which is a clue for inference or Main point questions.

Anyways,The conclusion - No single company can afford to stop polluting

Premise 1 - Many leaders want to slow down the rate at which plants pollute
Counter Premise 2 - Leaders fear the expense that will cripple company in the competative market
Premise 3 - Polluting companies have lower production costs than companies that limit pollution Or, the companies that limit pollution will have higher production costs than the polluting companies
Premise 4 ( all the question) - The best way to encourage companies to reduce the amount of pollutants they introduce into the environment would be

Assumption

1. Limiting pollution increases expense
2. The expense such as higher production cost enforces company to limit pollution from plant.

A - is providing a direct way to reduce the expense. No question about it. Look for the word "significant".
C - This is simply saying that the ad costs for polluting companies are higher than those of non-polluting companies. Only if we know that the ad costs are equivalent to the production costs ( in terms of value) or to the expense in question, we can explore further. Hence C is not the reason.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:33 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by vijaynaik » Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:49 pm
@paes, I eliminated C because it assumes that polluting companies spend a lot on adv'ts. Which may not be true all the time. Some companies might not be doing any adv'ts at all. So they may not save any money because they are not spending any to begin with. But tax credits will give every company an opportunity to install the equipment needed.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:05 am
Thanks Vishal and Vijay.

Vishal@,

The test is putting it under 'inference' category.
Although I feel that it is neither a inference problem nor a strengthen problem.

You can find some problems on GMAT, which can't be put in any main category.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:23 pm
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:1 members

by ov25 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:00 pm
Agree A
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:27 am
Location: Leeds,UK
Thanked: 1 times

by lokesh r » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:52 pm
paes wrote:No single company can afford to stop polluting. Many company leaders would like to slow the rate at which their plants pollute the environment, but fear that any expense, unilaterally incurred, will cripple their companies in a competitive market, because polluting companies have lower production costs than do companies that limit pollution.

If all of the information in the above passage is true, then, of the options below, the best way to encourage companies to reduce the amount of pollutants they introduce into the environment would be to


(A) provide significant tax credits to companies that install and maintain equipment that reduces the emission of pollutants
(B) develop new technology that would be more effective in cutting dangerous industrial emissions
(C) point out that advertising costs for polluting companies are higher, since such companies must combat the negative publicity they incur
(D) establish an award for executives of the companies that limit pollution
( E) fine companies that misrepresent to the government the amount of pollutants the company introduces into the environment

[spoiler]Source Princeton Test
Please explain A and C

[/spoiler]

IMO A.

Not all companies would have potential to advertise, but given a chance all companies would seek tax credit. So providing tax credit to companies is more effective than point mentioned in C.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1