test 14

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:16 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

test 14

by vaivish » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:17 am
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.
11. The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?
(A) None of the new plastic rings can disintegrate after only two days’ exposure to sunlight.
(B) The switchover to the new plastic rings can be completed without causing significant financial hardship to the beverage companies.
(C) Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate.
(D) Use of the old plastic rings poses no substantial threat to wild animals other than that of suffocation.
(E) Any wild animal that becomes entangled in the old plastic rings will suffocate as a result.
12. 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.


OA' are C and B.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:43 pm
Thanked: 23 times

by Suyog » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:39 am
11. Assumption:

new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to sunlight

C: it assumes that animals will be safe for three days...
i.e.
Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate....

12. Weaken:

Initial I thot its E cause the conclusion is

therefore, the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.

but E is wrong cause it says...

harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.


but as the stem says..

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.

and as B says...

fter 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.

its still not safe for wild animals....

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:55 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by kuroneko1313 » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:15 am
I'm a little confused here. For question 11, should the answer be:

(C) Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings after the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate.

or

(C) Wild animals will become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate.

Because it took 3 days for the plastic to disintegrate, would animals that get caught in this plastic ring before those 3-day period become entangled in those rings? (or something just doesn't click on me here)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:42 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by singalong » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:19 am
Could someone throw more light on why E is not right for 12th question?The option says"...when ingested in substantial quantities by them."
Is it wrong because this option doesn't say anything about what's going to happen to the old rings?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:55 am
FOr Q11 - the rings disintegrate in 3 days - that means after three days the fish are safe. But hte stimulus says the threat will be ELIMINATED. IN fact, the threat will last for 3 days. For the argument to be correct we have to assume the fish will somehow magically avoid all rings the first three days they are dropped in the ocean = C
Tani Wolff

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:57 am
For question 12, the stimulus only addresses the threat of suffocation. The threat of ingesting harmful chemicals is out of scope.
Tani Wolff