Critical Reasoning

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.


18. The author's opinion of the manufacturing process described in the passage is based primarily on the fact that
(A) plastic is unlikely to be durable enough for high-quality sailboat hulls
(B) the research costs of developing the process outweigh any savings possible from the use of the plastic
(C) a small sailboat is not normally regarded as a high-tech product
(D) hulls for small sailboats can be made from wood without converting it into plastic
(E) many other spheres of human activity are in far greater need of technological research

19. 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.

sridevipavan wrote: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.


18. The author's opinion of the manufacturing process described in the passage is based primarily on the fact that
(A) plastic is unlikely to be durable enough for high-quality sailboat hulls
(B) the research costs of developing the process outweigh any savings possible from the use of the plastic
(C) a small sailboat is not normally regarded as a high-tech product
(D) hulls for small sailboats can be made from wood without converting it into plastic
(E) many other spheres of human activity are in far greater need of technological research

19. 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.

I doubt that this is a real GMAT question, as it relies on a "soft", "where is the author coming from?" type argument, rather than a harder premises -> assumption -> conclusion logical one. Could you specify your difficulties here? Which answer choices did you think were the right ones, and why?

@Geva: A previous expert has given the answer to weaken question .

https://www.beatthegmat.com/hull-boats-t22781.html

But for the assumption question, I do not think any of the ACs correct ones. your comment please.

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

sridevipavan wrote: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.


18. The author's opinion of the manufacturing process described in the passage is based primarily on the fact that
(A) plastic is unlikely to be durable enough for high-quality sailboat hulls
(B) the research costs of developing the process outweigh any savings possible from the use of the plastic
(C) a small sailboat is not normally regarded as a high-tech product
(D) hulls for small sailboats can be made from wood without converting it into plastic
(E) many other spheres of human activity are in far greater need of technological research

19. 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.

I doubt that this is a real GMAT question, as it relies on a "soft", "where is the author coming from?" type argument, rather than a harder premises -> assumption -> conclusion logical one. Could you specify your difficulties here? Which answer choices did you think were the right ones, and why?

As I said, this problem is unusual in that it uses rhetoric, rather than logic. The key to the problem, and the question you should be asking yourself is - What does the author mean when he says "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."

With the sentence above, the author is pointing out the folly of going to all the effort to turn perfectly good wood into plastic, then into a boat - when you can just skip the technology "middle man" and just a build a boat from wood. But the author does not physically state this last fact, making this the unstated assumption behind his argument.

I believe the answer is D: if the hulls of small boats CANNOT be made from wood without converting it into plastic, then there is concrete justification for the technology to turn the wood into plastic other than the "mania for technology" cited by the author. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion that the case presented exemplifies technology developed just because of the Mania for technology (and not for other, more pragmatic causes), the author must assume that there is no other reason to develop the technology - in other words, that small boats CAN be made from wood without turning the wood into plastic first.

18. D

19. C

I am not sure of the answers. But according to me, the author is trying to say that "sailboat hulls can be made of wood without converting the wood to plastic". Please let me know if I am correct.

18. D

19. C

I am not sure of the answers. But according to me, the author is trying to say that "sailboat hulls can be made of wood without converting the wood to plastic". Please let me know if I am correct.

18. D

19. C

I am not sure of the answers. But according to me, the author is trying to say that "sailboat hulls can be made of wood without converting the wood to plastic". Please let me know if I am correct.

sridevipavan wrote:18. D

19. C

I am not sure of the answers. But according to me, the author is trying to say that "sailboat hulls can be made of wood without converting the wood to plastic". Please let me know if I am correct.

You are right about what the author is trying to say. It is precisely because of this analysis that the answer to Q19 is A (and not C): Answer choice A provides a reason why the boat NEEDS to be made of plastic (and not wood), and thus weakens the author's conclusion that the move from wood to plastic is a needless exercise.