A new technique for extracting residues of oil from existing oil wells by using lignins, a by-product of papermaking, is profitable provided that oil prices are over 20 dollars a barrel. Since oil prices are rising, investors looking for companies with prospects for rapid growth in profits would be wise to invest in paper manufacturers, whose currently almost worthless by-product will soon be a profit-boosting commodity.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) A small quantity of lignins are currently sold by paper manufacturers to chemical companies, but most of the lignins produced are burnt as waste.
(B) The 20-dollar-a-barrel oil price as a threshold of profitability for using lignins allows for the increased cost of refining crude oil that has been extracted using lignins
(C) Only one-half to two-thirds of the total oil in a well can be extracted using conventional techniques of pumping and flooding with water.
(D) Petroleum-based substances that can be used as a substitute for lignins in extracting oil are costly and are made from oil, and these substances therefore increase in price as oil increases in price.
(E) The quantity of lignins produced annually in the manufacture of paper is several times larger than the amount that is likely to be useful in the oil industry.
torn between [spoiler][/spoiler] and [spoiler][E][/spoiler]
Isn't excess lignins good? It can be even exported!!
lignins- Weaken
This topic has expert replies
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
- Thanked: 104 times
- Followed by:1 members
to weaken the conclusion that it would be wise to invest in the paper manufacturers
B. doesnt weaken the conclusion. the threshold of profitability allows for increased costs, which is not a bad thing and doesnt make invesment in paper manufacturers an unwise decision
E. correct. only a small propotion of the worthless byproduct will be useful. so the investment is not a wise decision. the legnins not used in oil refining are worthless- we cant assume that they can be profitably exported.
B. doesnt weaken the conclusion. the threshold of profitability allows for increased costs, which is not a bad thing and doesnt make invesment in paper manufacturers an unwise decision
E. correct. only a small propotion of the worthless byproduct will be useful. so the investment is not a wise decision. the legnins not used in oil refining are worthless- we cant assume that they can be profitably exported.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
- Location: San Francisco
- Thanked: 14 times
E is the right answer.
Think about supply and demand. If there's excess of ligin, more than what oil companies need, then it'll be hard for paper manufacturers to sell at a high price. Therefore, it weakens the arguement. It'll be worthless to invest in paper manufacturing because ligin will not be sold at a high price due to excess availability.
B--This doesn't really weaken the arguement. If you're making $20 per barrel using Ligin, then chances are you'll make less if the price for ligin goes up. You'll end up making less. This choice doesn't present a clear counter premise that'll weaken the arguement.
Think about supply and demand. If there's excess of ligin, more than what oil companies need, then it'll be hard for paper manufacturers to sell at a high price. Therefore, it weakens the arguement. It'll be worthless to invest in paper manufacturing because ligin will not be sold at a high price due to excess availability.
B--This doesn't really weaken the arguement. If you're making $20 per barrel using Ligin, then chances are you'll make less if the price for ligin goes up. You'll end up making less. This choice doesn't present a clear counter premise that'll weaken the arguement.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:22 pm
- Location: Indy
- Thanked: 3 times
kanha81 wrote:A new technique for extracting residues of oil from existing oil wells by using lignins, a by-product of papermaking, is profitable provided that oil prices are over 20 dollars a barrel. Since oil prices are rising, investors looking for companies with prospects for rapid growth in profits would be wise to invest in paper manufacturers, whose currently almost worthless by-product will soon be a profit-boosting commodity.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) A small quantity of lignins are currently sold by paper manufacturers to chemical companies, but most of the lignins produced are burnt as waste.
(B) The 20-dollar-a-barrel oil price as a threshold of profitability for using lignins allows for the increased cost of refining crude oil that has been extracted using lignins
(C) Only one-half to two-thirds of the total oil in a well can be extracted using conventional techniques of pumping and flooding with water.
(D) Petroleum-based substances that can be used as a substitute for lignins in extracting oil are costly and are made from oil, and these substances therefore increase in price as oil increases in price.
(E) The quantity of lignins produced annually in the manufacture of paper is several times larger than the amount that is likely to be useful in the oil industry.
torn between [spoiler][/spoiler] and [spoiler][E][/spoiler]
Isn't excess lignins good? It can be even exported!!
IMO E. B just justifies why the oil price should be above 20$.