-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Brothers Inc, a construction company, spends significant time and money to dismantle older houses piece by piece in order to reuse the wood. Although the company does earn a net profit despite these expenditures, the company could earn even more by adopting a new policy. Brothers' new land contains hundreds of trees that are already slated to be razed; the company should use those trees for wood instead of the old houses
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports Brothers' policy to reuse wood?
A) It is a waste of resources for a company that needs wood to chop down hundreds of trees but not use the wood.
B) There is virtually no difference in quality between wood reclaimed from older houses and wood processed from newly-chopped trees.
C) Sawmills can reshape previously used wood much more quickly and cost-effectively than it can shape whole trees.
D) It would cost the company less to use the trees it already owns than to pay to dismantle homes for previously used wood.
E) The number of older houses available for dismantling is growing steadily.
OE
A company currently dismantles older homes in order to extract used wood and reuse that wood. The argument claims the company could earn more by doing things differently. Specifically, the company is going to cut down trees on a new piece of land; the argument suggests that the company will make more if it uses those trees as the wood source instead. The question asks us to strengthen the company's existing policy to reuse the wood.
A) This is certainly true, but the company's existing policy is to reuse wood from old houses. This information does not support that policy; if anything, this information makes the existing policy less attractive.
B) This may be true but it does not affect the argument one way or another. If the quality is essentially the same, then no reason has been given to prefer one source of wood over another.
C) CORRECT. The company may not have to pay to acquire the trees, but it would have to pay to process them. If it takes much more time and expense to process the trees, then it is more likely that reusing wood is the way to earn more money. This supports Brothers' existing policy.
D) This information is the opposite of what we want. If it were true, it would support the author's claim (that the company could earn more money by using the trees it is about to chop down). The question, however, asks us to support the company's existing policy to reuse wood.
E) While the existence of such houses is certainly necessary in order for the company to be able to dismantle them, their mere existence does not justify or strengthen the company's decision that it is a good policy to dismantle older houses for wood.
How does A make the existing policy less attractive ?
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports Brothers' policy to reuse wood?
A) It is a waste of resources for a company that needs wood to chop down hundreds of trees but not use the wood.
B) There is virtually no difference in quality between wood reclaimed from older houses and wood processed from newly-chopped trees.
C) Sawmills can reshape previously used wood much more quickly and cost-effectively than it can shape whole trees.
D) It would cost the company less to use the trees it already owns than to pay to dismantle homes for previously used wood.
E) The number of older houses available for dismantling is growing steadily.
OE
A company currently dismantles older homes in order to extract used wood and reuse that wood. The argument claims the company could earn more by doing things differently. Specifically, the company is going to cut down trees on a new piece of land; the argument suggests that the company will make more if it uses those trees as the wood source instead. The question asks us to strengthen the company's existing policy to reuse the wood.
A) This is certainly true, but the company's existing policy is to reuse wood from old houses. This information does not support that policy; if anything, this information makes the existing policy less attractive.
B) This may be true but it does not affect the argument one way or another. If the quality is essentially the same, then no reason has been given to prefer one source of wood over another.
C) CORRECT. The company may not have to pay to acquire the trees, but it would have to pay to process them. If it takes much more time and expense to process the trees, then it is more likely that reusing wood is the way to earn more money. This supports Brothers' existing policy.
D) This information is the opposite of what we want. If it were true, it would support the author's claim (that the company could earn more money by using the trees it is about to chop down). The question, however, asks us to support the company's existing policy to reuse wood.
E) While the existence of such houses is certainly necessary in order for the company to be able to dismantle them, their mere existence does not justify or strengthen the company's decision that it is a good policy to dismantle older houses for wood.
How does A make the existing policy less attractive ?
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
