Critical Reasoning

The wholesale cost of asbestos, used in the manufacture of fire-retardant asbestos shorts, has seen a significant reduction in the past year, unlike that of its substitute, raw wire mesh. Thus, while asbestos shorts stores' retail prices have yet to fall, they will certainly do so eventually.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens this argument?

A. The weaving costs for asbestos cloth rose in the past year.
B. The gross wholesale price for untreated asbestos is usually more than the same volume of untreated wire mesh.
C. The average store specializing in retail sale of asbestos shorts has seen its operating costs remain unchanged in the past year.
D. Retail price changes always lag behind wholesale price changes.
E. Asbestos manufacturing costs increased in the past year.

OA Later

Argument says retail price of finished product will decrease because cost of raw material decreased. If some other cost component increases, this argument can be weakened. 'A' talks about weaving costs that rose. This will weaken the conclusion that retail prices will fall.

So IMO A.

kvcpk wrote:The wholesale cost of asbestos, used in the manufacture of fire-retardant asbestos shorts, has seen a significant reduction in the past year, unlike that of its substitute, raw wire mesh. Thus, while asbestos shorts stores' retail prices have yet to fall, they will certainly do so eventually.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens this argument?

A. The weaving costs for asbestos cloth rose in the past year.
B. The gross wholesale price for untreated asbestos is usually more than the same volume of untreated wire mesh.
C. The average store specializing in retail sale of asbestos shorts has seen its operating costs remain unchanged in the past year.
D. Retail price changes always lag behind wholesale price changes.
E. Asbestos manufacturing costs increased in the past year.

OA Later

[spoiler]The arguement says that asbestos shorts stores' retail prices will certainly fall eventually.
I chose C because it states that an avg retail sale store has not seen its operating costs change over the past one year. While the premise says that over the past 1 year wholesale cost of asbestos is decreasing, Choice C basically shows that the decreasing cost of asbestos has not resulted in a decrease in their operating costs.[/spoiler]

IMO A as well. That is the only argument that is in the scope of the passage.. only accountants know what operating costs really are....

my pick is A
though the raw material cost has fallen, an increase in weaving costs would mean no fall in the final prices of the shorts

kvcpk wrote:The wholesale cost of asbestos, used in the manufacture of fire-retardant asbestos shorts, has seen a significant reduction in the past year, unlike that of its substitute, raw wire mesh. Thus, while asbestos shorts stores' retail prices have yet to fall, they will certainly do so eventually.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens this argument?

A. The weaving costs for asbestos cloth rose in the past year.
B. The gross wholesale price for untreated asbestos is usually more than the same volume of untreated wire mesh.
C. The average store specializing in retail sale of asbestos shorts has seen its operating costs remain unchanged in the past year.
D. Retail price changes always lag behind wholesale price changes.
E. Asbestos manufacturing costs increased in the past year.

OA Later

It is A.

The author leaves big gaps to be attacked.

RAW asbestos ---> asbestos fabric-------> retails sells

Raw material cost has gone down does not mean that the manufacturing cost had also gone down.

A anti fill the gap.