Critical Reasoning

Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

IMO-D
Reasoning .

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides? --This will be required for cost-profit evalatuon
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride? --Same as A
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride? --
TO check whether it follows new environmental regulations
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used? -Not required wrt to environmental regulations or cost profit analysis
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?--If it has the same chemical prop then it could be as polutant as Salt ,hence required

WhT IS OA?

Only (E) has no impact on company profits.

I will go with E.

I would go with D .

IMO B


This argument is least important for Tanco and does not impact on comapany profits of using pottassium Cl in place of common salt.

B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?

GMATPR wrote:IMO B


This argument is least important for Tanco and does not impact on comapany profits of using pottassium Cl in place of common salt.

B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?

The answer should be C, because the arguments states that anyhow some little amount of waste will still be ther even after useing potassium chloride and the author is not woried about that so with this i suppose that disposal after the use of Potassium chloride is no matter of concern

I'm with GMAT PR for answer choice B.

D was my second choice.

I'm with GMAT PR for answer choice B.

D was my second choice.

jkwan,

What is the OA?

Thanks

E should be the ans...
as long as potash chloride is preserving the hide.. it doesn't matter what composition it has....

Its E.

A. If cost of KCL is expensive then, profits will drop. If KCL is cheaper, profits will soar. Therefore it affects the decision. Ruled out.

B. If equipment used reacts to KCL, then he needs to re-invest in eqipment. If KCL has no effect on equipment, then he can use it. Therefore it affects the decision. Ruled out.

C. If KCL is also banned, then no point in going for it. If not, it is an alternative. Therefore it affects the decision. Ruled out.

D. If using KCL affects the leather, lets say it cant be preserved for a long time, then he has a issue. Else its good for leather. Therefore it affects the decision. Ruled out.

E. Chemical properties of KCL has not bearing on his decesion. All he cares is if he can use it in place of NaCl and from the argument it is implied that it can be. So, as per me E has not bearing what so ever.

I would like to go with C here

E talks bout the chemical composition.If its not as effective as salt then they it will have an impact on the cost-profit.

C only talks bout the environmental constraint and nothing about the profitability

I will go with C

It is not related to the profit of the company rather it is related to the environmental issues

sacx wrote:I will go with C

It is not related to the profit of the company rather it is related to the environmental issues

C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride? --

yes in some ways knowing the regulation will determine needed changes and accordingly additional cost to company. take for ex, just assume that by products need to be dumped 10000km from the state, or 3000 fit deep, right all this will require additional expenses, if they were not for salt one...

E is meaningless, as in all probability knowing the composition is not much of a help...