Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 20:57 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 20:57

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 149
Own Kudos [?]: 296 [43]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: Kolkata
Concentration: Strategic Management
Schools:La Martiniere for Boys
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64904 [4]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92900
Own Kudos [?]: 618837 [2]
Given Kudos: 81588
Send PM
General Discussion
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 99 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
rampuria wrote:
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.
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.

Please explain your answer.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

E looks very tempting, but a closer look clarifies that 'aquatic animals' are out of scope. There is no mention of bags flowing into water bodies. The argument was to protect wild animals & not fishes and ofcourse we cant call fishes as wild animals.

Given less than 2 minutes to solve this question, I'd have marked E. Even if I had marked B it'd have been with a lot of guilt & skepticism. A real tricky question.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 696
Own Kudos [?]: 2799 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
WHt I can make out from B is : the representative thinks that once there z a complete switch over there ill be no threat. BUt B says even after there is complete shift from old to new rings, still there will be a large no of old rings. So the threat is very much there. So B shld be the answer.
But honestly speaking I reached this conclusion only after knowing the ans oderwise in exams, I wld hv prompltly chosen E :(
rampuria wrote:
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.
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.

Please explain your answer.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

Originally posted by ritula on 02 Oct 2008, 09:08.
Last edited by ritula on 02 Oct 2008, 09:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 617
Own Kudos [?]: 2901 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
1
Kudos
jatinrai wrote:
rampuria wrote:
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.
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.

Please explain your answer.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

E looks very tempting, but a closer look clarifies that 'aquatic animals' are out of scope. There is no mention of bags flowing into water bodies. The argument was to protect wild animals & not fishes and ofcourse we cant call fishes as wild animals.

Given less than 2 minutes to solve this question, I'd have marked E. Even if I had marked B it'd have been with a lot of guilt & skepticism. A real tricky question.


Even B talks about aquatic animals !!! again E talks about threat due to ingestion of toxic elements !!may be this makes E a weaker option
and B scores here saying even though the old to new switch is taken place but still old plastic still prevails !!!
hence the threat cannot be obviated or eliminated
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 369
Own Kudos [?]: 186 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
2
Kudos
its not E because the argument says new plastic rings will prevent suffocation, not death by ingestion

B is the answer
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 117
Own Kudos [?]: 1720 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
IMO B . The reason is already explained by ritula.

Note that the conclusion here is '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. '

Anything that can prove the above statement wrong or hamper the above statement will weaken it.

E is outside the scope of the argument ; only B weakens tha argument by saying that even if the new plastic is in play, the old plastic will still be there, and so the threat to the animals will not be eliminated.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 106
GPA: 3.8
WE:Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
jatinrai wrote:
rampuria wrote:
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.
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.

Please explain your answer.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

E looks very tempting, but a closer look clarifies that 'aquatic animals' are out of scope. There is no mention of bags flowing into water bodies. The argument was to protect wild animals & not fishes and ofcourse we cant call fishes as wild animals.

Given less than 2 minutes to solve this question, I'd have marked E. Even if I had marked B it'd have been with a lot of guilt & skepticism. A real tricky question.


I only read the first few responses so I apologize if this is repeated...My reasoning for B over E (and it was a close one, i can relate to you all!), is that the conclusion mentions suffocation specifically. Now, my reasoning may be flawed but upon reading E it mentioned ingestion, not specifically suffocation. Does that make sense? If not, I merely got lucky
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2101
Own Kudos [?]: 8808 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
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.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - the threat of suffocation will be eliminated after the switchover is complete.


(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete. - Incorrect - This answer does not hurt the argument because the author qualified the conclusion to account for the date of the switchover, thereby inoculating against this avenue of attack
(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. - Correct - This answer undermines the representative’s conclusion by showing that even after the switchover is complete, the threat to animals from plastic rings will persist
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings. - Out of scope
(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. - Out of scope
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.- ISWAT - the conclusion is specifically about suffocation, and answer choice (E) does not address suffocation

Answer B
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 169
Own Kudos [?]: 991 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
"the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose " is the key and yes, B attacks the conclusion.
D just talks about a scenario.
E is closed, but E is a trap. E discusses another consequence which is out of scope of the argument. Also, in E, "when ingested in substantial quantities by them" shows that the threat can still be eliminated if "ingested quantities" is not large.
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1261
Own Kudos [?]: 1238 [0]
Given Kudos: 1207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
nightblade354 generis VeritasKarishma PeepalTree assaad Harshgmat


Quote:
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.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?


Paraphrasing:
New rings / old rings: Old rings get entangled -> suffocation in wild animals
So, use of old rings SHOULD be discarded.
New rings: disintegrate after 3 days exposure to sunlight.
So no suffocation/health hazard to wild animals.

Conclusion: the threat of suffocation that OLD plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.

Premise: new rings disintegrates only after 3 days to exposure.


Quote:
(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.

I am really concerned how can this be OA with the usage of most and narrowing the scope
from wild animals to aquatic and woodland environments

Plus why I can not assume that the new rings will disintegrate and prevent health threat to wild animals?

Quote:
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.


Can I not discard (E) seeing that scope is (E) is limited to only aquatic animals?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 459
Own Kudos [?]: 765 [0]
Given Kudos: 118
Location: France
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 3.82
WE:Consulting (Other)
Send PM
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
adkikani wrote:
nightblade354 generis VeritasKarishma PeepalTree assaad Harshgmat


Quote:
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.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?


Let me try......

I have read the question stem first and know it is type weaken....

Now I read the stimulus

After going through argument at this point my thinking :

OK ..So new plastic rings will eliminate threat of suffocation to wild animals...Good

a) But what about the existing/old plastic rings? They are still a threat ....

b) Does new plastic rings pose any new kind of threat??

Remember I have to weaken the BCR claim...


Paraphrasing:
New rings / old rings: Old rings get entangled -> suffocation in wild animals
So, use of old rings SHOULD be discarded.
New rings: disintegrate after 3 days exposure to sunlight.
So no suffocation/health hazard to wild animals.

Conclusion: the threat of suffocation that OLD plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.

Premise: new rings disintegrates only after 3 days to exposure.


Quote:
(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.



I am really concerned how can this be OA with the usage of most and narrowing the scope
from wild animals to aquatic and woodland environments

Mate..woodland -------is-------->forestland

So it is stated indirectly that in the environment of the wild animals a substantial number of the old plastic rings will persist....so wild animal can get entangled and
suffocate as a result.....Definitely weakens the BCR claim that "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." Threat because of old existing plastic rings not eliminated.


Plus why I can not assume that the new rings will disintegrate and prevent health threat to wild animals? - You are right to assume that but only partially...as the BCR is silent about the threat because of old existing plastic rings. And it still exists.

Quote:
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.


Can I not discard (E) seeing that scope is (E) is limited to only aquatic animals?


Yes..but it depends upon the available answer choices...

In GMAT what I am targeting is to select the best answer choice among the given choices and not the perfect one....

Here B) is definitely better than E)

Hope this helps !!
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 156 [0]
Given Kudos: 150
Location: India
Schools: IIMA WBS '22
GMAT 1: 640 Q46 V32
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Send PM
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
adkikani wrote:
nightblade354 generis VeritasKarishma PeepalTree assaad Harshgmat


Quote:
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.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?


Paraphrasing:
New rings / old rings: Old rings get entangled -> suffocation in wild animals
So, use of old rings SHOULD be discarded.
New rings: disintegrate after 3 days exposure to sunlight.
So no suffocation/health hazard to wild animals.

Conclusion: the threat of suffocation that OLD plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.

Premise: new rings disintegrates only after 3 days to exposure.


Quote:
(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.

I am really concerned how can this be OA with the usage of most and narrowing the scope
from wild animals to aquatic and woodland environments

Plus why I can not assume that the new rings will disintegrate and prevent health threat to wild animals?

Quote:
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.


Can I not discard (E) seeing that scope is (E) is limited to only aquatic animals?



We are only concerned about the threat of suffocation- and all other type of threat is irrelevant as conclusion of the argument is "the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated."
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2018
Posts: 116
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 336
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (S)
GMAT 1: 560 Q43 V23
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma
GMATNinja

Please help with answer option D.


Quote:
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during the shipping of beverage six-packs because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
Please help me with this answer choice. I marked this as the correct answer. And the reason I did that was "if the plastic rings do not disintegrate during transit, they will disintegrate after 3 days of exposure to sunlight. And what if during these 3 days the animal becomes entangled and is suffocated. How do we rule out this possibility? Nowhere are we given the information about when and where are the plastic rings exposed to sunlight.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6920
Own Kudos [?]: 63658 [0]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
Expert Reply
sonalchhajed2019 wrote:
VeritasKarishma
GMATNinja

Please help with answer option D.


Quote:
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during the shipping of beverage six-packs because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
Please help me with this answer choice. I marked this as the correct answer. And the reason I did that was "if the plastic rings do not disintegrate during transit, they will disintegrate after 3 days of exposure to sunlight. And what if during these 3 days the animal becomes entangled and is suffocated. How do we rule out this possibility? Nowhere are we given the information about when and where are the plastic rings exposed to sunlight.

As you point out, before the new plastic rings disintegrate, they could in theory suffocate a wild animal. So you could argue that this fact is flaw in the argument. But our goal isn't to find a flaw in the argument. Our goal is simply to find the answer choice that most seriously weakens the argument.

The problem with answer choice (D) is that it doesn't weaken the argument. We already know that rings dissolve after three days' exposure to sunlight, so presumably they won't dissolve if they are not exposed to sunlight. Thus, answer choice (D) doesn't add any new information. It doesn't rule out the possibility that an animal will be suffocated before the plastic rings dissolve, but that doesn't mean it weakens the argument.

Let's now take a look at (B):

Quote:
(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.

Keep in mind the conclusion states that once the switchover to the new plastic rings is complete, "the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated." But if there are "substantial numbers of old plastic rings in most aquatic and woodland environments," these old plastic rings could still suffocate wild animals.

Since this weakens the argument, (B) is correct.

I hope that helps!
Director
Director
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 994
Own Kudos [?]: 183 [0]
Given Kudos: 309
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
rampuria wrote:
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.

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.
THe suffocation will be ended once the plastics are replaced therefore the time frame of implementation is acceptable therefore out

(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.
THis definitely weakens the conclusion that suffocation will be eradicated , which is not happening since the earler plastics are huge determent fot the eradication to take place therefore let us hang on to it

(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings.
THis is thoroughly irrevelant and out of context and doesn't have the slightest implication therefore out

(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.
This is definitely acceptable to protect the product and maintaining the ideal conditions and doesn't weaken the conclusion therefore out

(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.
THis definitely weakens , however B is a stronger contender on the impact of the situation therefore out

THerefore IMO B
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4946
Own Kudos [?]: 7626 [0]
Given Kudos: 215
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
Top Contributor
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.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?

Question type: Weaken the argument

Conclusion: After the switchover, the threat of suffocation to wild animals will be eliminated

Task at hand: Find an option that shows that the threat of suffocation will not necessarily be eliminated

A. The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete. How much time the switchover will take will not show that the threat of suffocation will not necessarily be eliminated.

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. This options shows that even after the switchover the threat will still probably exist because a substantial number of the old plastic rings will persist in the environment.

C. The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings. How much the new rings will cost in comparison to the old rings will not show that the threat of suffocation will not necessarily be eliminated.

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. The main focus is that these rings will disintegrate when exposed to sunlight after the rings have been eliminated. That these will not disintegrate while in transit is a good thing, but it will not show that the threat of suffocation will not necessarily be eliminated.

E. The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them. Trick option alert! The focus of the conclusion is suffocation due to entanglement. This option shows that the animals may be harmed because they ingest these rings.

- Nitha Jay
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2021
Posts: 131
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 409
Send PM
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
ExpertsGlobal5
KarishmaB DmitryFarber AjiteshArun GMATNinja
GMATNinjaTwo
GMATWhizteam

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.

Doubt - In the last sentence, Is 'therefore' redundant? The sentence begins with dependent clause marker - ONCE and after DC we have an IC beginning with IC marker THEREFORE.
Questions -
1. Is this kind of sentence construction correct where we have both DC and IC marker?
2. Can you also give some other example?
3. Would the sentence be correct if we did not have therefore in sentence? If yes, will the meaning change?

Thanks in advance!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6920
Own Kudos [?]: 63658 [2]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
waytowharton wrote:
ExpertsGlobal5
KarishmaB DmitryFarber AjiteshArun GMATNinja
GMATNinjaTwo
GMATWhizteam

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.

Doubt - In the last sentence, Is 'therefore' redundant? The sentence begins with dependent clause marker - ONCE and after DC we have an IC beginning with IC marker THEREFORE.
Questions -
1. Is this kind of sentence construction correct where we have both DC and IC marker?
2. Can you also give some other example?
3. Would the sentence be correct if we did not have therefore in sentence? If yes, will the meaning change?

Thanks in advance!

This sentence is grammatically fine! And the meaning is not redundant -- in this context, "once" means "after." So in saying "Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings," the author is constraining his/her conclusion to the time after beverage companies have completed the switch.

Separately, "therefore" serves to highlight the fact that the last sentence is the author's conclusion (and if you'd like more on the various grammatical uses "therefore," check out the last bit of this article).

Finally: sure, the sentence would be fine without the word "therefore," but on CR your job is not to pick apart the author's grammar or style. Leave that kind of thing for SC.

I hope that helps a bit!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne