Critical Reasoning

Beverage company representative: The plastic rings
that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often
become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all
beverage companies will soon use only those
rings consisting of a new plastic that
disintegrates after only three days' exposure to
sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover
from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,
the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose
to wild animals will be eliminated.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the representative's argument?
(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will
take at least two more years to complete.
(B) After the beverage companies have switched
over to the new plastic rings, a substantial
number of the old plastic rings will persist
in most aquatic and woodland environments.
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less
expensive than the old rings.
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate
during shipping of beverage six-packs
because most trucks that transport canned
beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into
substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial
quantities by them



I didn't get why option E is wrong.


E says - disintegrate into substances that are harmful

Argument conclusion says- the threat of suffocation

if something is harmful that includes suffocation as well!

I feel harmful has much broader scope but then the argument says about WILD ANIMALS and the correct choice talks about aquatic and woodland environments then that also has scope problem.

Please help!

E is a classic CR wrong answer.

The conclusion is that "the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose
to wild animals will be eliminated."

It is not that animals will no longer be harmed by the rings.

Also, notice that E says that the substances are harmful "when ingested", in other words, when eaten. So the rings are not suffocating the animals. They are harming them from the inside somehow.

Saying something that seems like what is said in the conclusion but is not actually what is said in the conclusion is one of the ways question writers create trap answers.

Meanwhile, a huge proportion of wild animals live in aquatic and woodland environments. So if the old rings are in those environments, then the rings will be where many, or even most, animals live.

Hi Marty,


I got your point about modified conclusion that options E is considering.


What about " the correct choice talks about aquatic and woodland environments then that also has scope problem" ?

Hey Marty,

Please share your thoughts.

Hi.

I edited my reply above to address your question about scope as related to the topic, woodland and aquatic environments.

I'll take it further by saying the following.

The answer choice did not just mention woodland and aquatic areas; it specifically includes the word "environments". Environments are places where things live. So the inclusion of the word "environments" serves to imply that the old rings will persist in places where things, which things we can safely assume include animals, are living.

So there is a clear indication that you can make a connection between what in choice B is said about aquatic and woodland environments and old rings posing a threat of suffocation to wild animals.

That detail, the use of the word "environments", is just the type of thing that you need to notice in order to totally rock GMAT critical reasoning.

Marty,

First of all,

you said "Also, notice that E says that the substances are harmful "when ingested", in other words, when eaten. So the rings are not suffocating the animals. They are harming them from the inside somehow.
"

Now please read below original sentence.

The plastic rings
that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often
become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result.


Ring will cause suffocation after anyone will intake it or ingest. What are your thoughts on this.





Coming back to main issue- My point is Argument talks about WILD animals and wild animals doesn't include aquatic animals.


Animal set includes :

1) wild animals

2) aquatic animals

3) woodland animals


and others blah blah.....


I hope you get my point now.



It would have been fine if option had been only ANIMALS. That's just my point...I know this question should have been made by great instructor.

vishalwin wrote:Marty,

First of all,

you said "Also, notice that E says that the substances are harmful "when ingested", in other words, when eaten. So the rings are not suffocating the animals. They are harming them from the inside somehow."

Now please read below original sentence.

The plastic rings
that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often
become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result.


Ring will cause suffocation after anyone will intake it or ingest. What are your thoughts on this.

Suffocate means rendered unable to breathe. The suffocation described occurs when animals "become entangled in the discarded rings" of the old type and therefore become physically restrained in such a way as to be unable to breathe.

The new rings are a solution to this problem, because the new rings disintegrate "after only three days' exposure to sunlight." An animal will not become entangled in something that has disintegrated.

Further, it does not make sense that an animal would suffocate as a result of eating something that had disintegrated. So it does not make sense that the harm that comes from ingesting the substances is in the form of suffocation.

So it seems extremely fair to say that the new rings do not pose a threat of suffocation, either via animals getting entangled in them or via animals ingesting them.

Coming back to main issue- My point is Argument talks about WILD animals and wild animals doesn't include aquatic animals.

Animal set includes :

1) wild animals

2) aquatic animals

3) woodland animals

and others blah blah.....

Actually wild animals live in aquatic and woodland environments, and the set, wild animals, includes any animals that are not domesticated animals. So aquatic animals and woodland animals are for the most part subsets of the set wild animals.

Hello Marty,

Can you share your insight why B is correct?