Critical Reasoning

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

A. The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
B. Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new p
[spoiler]
I agree that B resolve the paradox and is the OA, but what is the problem with A. I feel A also resolves the paradox by explaining the reason[/spoiler]

confuse mind wrote:Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

A. The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
B. Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new p
[spoiler]
I agree that B resolve the paradox and is the OA, but what is the problem with A. I feel A also resolves the paradox by explaining the reason[/spoiler]

Although A might be a good choice otherwise, it has a potential flaw that B addresses:
It may be possible that even though the unprocessed trees are cheaper, the processing of new paper from trees has become more expensive than before which offsets the savings from trees and then some.

B correctly talks about the cost of production of new paper being cheaper.

Let me know if this helps

confuse mind wrote:Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

A. The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
B. Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new p
[spoiler]
I agree that B resolve the paradox and is the OA, but what is the problem with A. I feel A also resolves the paradox by explaining the reason[/spoiler]

Please provide all the options. The option B you provided is incomplete.
You can find good discussion about this question at: https://www.beatthegmat.com/point-of-pri ... 13592.html

eagleeye wrote:

confuse mind wrote:Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

A. The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
B. Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new p
[spoiler]
I agree that B resolve the paradox and is the OA, but what is the problem with A. I feel A also resolves the paradox by explaining the reason[/spoiler]

Although A might be a good choice otherwise, it has a potential flaw that B addresses:
It may be possible that even though the unprocessed trees are cheaper, the processing of new paper from trees has become more expensive than before which offsets the savings from trees and then some.

B correctly talks about the cost of production of new paper being cheaper.

Let me know if this helps

The way 'increase in processing costs' can take away the benefits provided by 'decrease in raw material costs' in A, the same way 'increase in raw material costs' can take away the advantage obtained by 'decrease in processing costs' in B. No?

----------- still confused---------------