NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 07:21 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 07:21
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
G
Nevernevergiveup
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1015
Own Kudos [?]: 2755 [20]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 01 Jul 2019, 06:38
2
Kudos
18
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (02:11) correct 27% (02:14) wrong based on 1470 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from recycled glass than from raw materials. Once the recycled glass or raw materials have been turned into molten glass, making bottles from recycled glass follows the same process as making bottles from raw materials. Obviously, soft drink bottlers who make a large percentage of their bottles from recycled glass have significant energy savings. Therefore, by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The process of making bottles from plastic that has been recycled is not significantly more energy efficient than is the process of making bottles from glass that has been recycled.
(B) The amount of glass that is currently recycled each year is enough to supply the major soft drink bottlers with materials for a large percentage of the glass bottles they make that year.
(C) Most consumers are not able to distinguish bottles made from recycled glass from glass bottles made from raw materials.
(D) Purchasing and transport costs are not so much greater for recycled glass than for raw materials that they outweigh the savings in energy costs resulting from the use of recycled glass.
(E) The process of making molten glass from recycled glass requires fewer steps than does the process of making molten glass from raw materials.

Show Spoiler
I feel Main fight is between B and D.
conclusion says that by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time. But inorder to use recycled glass instead of glass from raw material they should have enough amout of material as in B.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D

Originally posted by Nevernevergiveup on 06 Oct 2015, 13:11.
Last edited by BillyZ on 01 Jul 2019, 06:38, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
B
arhumsid
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 May 2014
Status:One Last Shot !!!
Posts: 196
Own Kudos [?]: 607 [9]
Given Kudos: 141
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '17 (D) IIMA (D) LBS '19 NUS '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   06 Oct 2015, 21:27
9
Kudos
dav90 wrote:
I am still inclined towards B, because if there is no enough glass available then the argument about profit would be futile. but the last statement i.e the conclusion is about cost and environment saving, and hence I am now really confused between B and D :?

Can anybody tell what is the exact point which makes D better than B


Bottle making process:

Step 0) (The enlightenment: coming up later :) )
a. Get raw material
OR
b. Get recycled glass

Step 1) Make molten Glass
a. Raw material ---> Molten Glass (Requires more energy)
OR
b. Recycled glass ----> Molten glass (Requires less energy)

Step 2) Make bottles
Molten Glass (from step 1) ---> Bottles

Environmentalist's conclusion:
By using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials (use step 1 -b, instead of step 1 -a), bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time.

Clearly, the Environmentalist is only considering the process of making bottles after the bottlers have either Raw material or recycled glass ready with them (failing to address Step 0). Sure, once you have the recycled glass ready, the process will be cost effective but what about the cost of getting the recycled glass? (consider Step 0 now)
For the cost of making bottles from recycled glass to be lower than that of making bottles from raw material, the cost associated with obtaining recycled glass should be less than that of getting raw material - Assumption
This is choice D

B is actually out of scope:
Environmentalist is only saying that If the bottlers use recycled glass instead of raw material, they can lower their costs. period!
Availability of recycled glass is none of his business. Even if there is no recycled glass available, what he concluded may still hold.

Just like-
By giving more mocks, you can score better on the GMAT.
now, i dont care if the number of mocks that are currently created each year is enough for you. Even if it isnt, what i told still holds true.
:lol:

Hope that helps :)
General Discussion
User avatar
dav90
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 105
GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V29
GMAT 2: 630 Q47 V29
Send PM
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   06 Oct 2015, 19:07
Mechmeera wrote:
Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from recycled glass than from raw materials. Once the recycled glass or raw materials have been turned into molten glass, making bottles from recycled glass follows the same process as making bottles from raw materials. Obviously, soft drink bottlers who make a large percentage of their bottles from recycled glass have significant
energy savings. Therefore, by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
(A) The process of making bottles from plastic that has been recycled is not significantly more energy efficient than is the process of making bottles from glass that has been recycled.
(B) The amount of glass that is currently recycled each year is enough to supply the major soft drink bottlers with materials for a large
percentage of the glass bottles they make that year.
(C) Most consumers are not able to distinguish bottles made from recycled glass from glass bottles made from raw materials.
(D) Purchasing and transport costs are not so much greater for recycled glass than for raw materials that they outweigh the savings in energy costs resulting from the use of recycled glass.
(E) The process of making molten glass from recycled glass requires fewer steps than does the process of making molten glass from raw materials.

Show Spoiler
I feel Main fight is between B and D.
conclusion says that by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time. But inorder to use recycled glass instead of glass from raw material they should have enough amout of material as in B.


I am still inclined towards B, because if there is no enough glass available then the argument about profit would be futile. but the last statement i.e the conclusion is about cost and environment saving, and hence I am now really confused between B and D :?

Can anybody tell what is the exact point which makes D better than B
User avatar
B
tarunk31
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 182
Own Kudos [?]: 448 [3]
Given Kudos: 147
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   08 Oct 2015, 01:04
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Mechmeera

Focus on conclusion.

Conclusion:
by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time

Particularly note first few words: "by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials"

This implies that we are talking about the case when we have the choice between recycled and raw material. So B cannot be assumption. Logically also its obvious that recycled material would fall short of the total requirement by the industry but question is when you have the choice would you use it?
User avatar
rohan89
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Feb 2015
Posts: 81
Own Kudos [?]: 54 [2]
Given Kudos: 100
Send PM
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   08 Oct 2015, 05:20
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Mechmeera wrote:
Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from recycled glass than from raw materials. Once the recycled glass or raw materials have been turned into molten glass, making bottles from recycled glass follows the same process as making bottles from raw materials. Obviously, soft drink bottlers who make a large percentage of their bottles from recycled glass have significant
energy savings. Therefore, by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
(A) The process of making bottles from plastic that has been recycled is not significantly more energy efficient than is the process of making bottles from glass that has been recycled.
(B) The amount of glass that is currently recycled each year is enough to supply the major soft drink bottlers with materials for a large
percentage of the glass bottles they make that year.
(C) Most consumers are not able to distinguish bottles made from recycled glass from glass bottles made from raw materials.
(D) Purchasing and transport costs are not so much greater for recycled glass than for raw materials that they outweigh the savings in energy costs resulting from the use of recycled glass.
(E) The process of making molten glass from recycled glass requires fewer steps than does the process of making molten glass from raw materials.

Show Spoiler
I feel Main fight is between B and D.
conclusion says that by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time. But inorder to use recycled glass instead of glass from raw material they should have enough amout of material as in B.


Option D.
If the purchasing cost for the recycled glass is higher than the raw materials, then the manufacturer will go for the raw materials instead and this goes against the conclusion drawn by the environmentalist.

Option B does not in any case goes against the conclusion even if the recycled material is short of requirement. Neither does this option say anything about the costs incurred by the manufacturer nor does it state any benefit for the environment.

Other options are irrelevant.

Thanks,
Rohan
User avatar
P
mvictor
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2163
Own Kudos [?]: 1180 [0]
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '20 (WD)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   18 May 2016, 18:55
Nevernevergiveup wrote:
Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from recycled glass than from raw materials. Once the recycled glass or raw materials have been turned into molten glass, making bottles from recycled glass follows the same process as making bottles from raw materials. Obviously, soft drink bottlers who make a large percentage of their bottles from recycled glass have significant
energy savings. Therefore, by using recycled glass instead of glass made from raw materials, bottlers can lower their costs and benefit the environment at the same time.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
(A) The process of making bottles from plastic that has been recycled is not significantly more energy efficient than is the process of making bottles from glass that has been recycled.
(B) The amount of glass that is currently recycled each year is enough to supply the major soft drink bottlers with materials for a large
percentage of the glass bottles they make that year.
(C) Most consumers are not able to distinguish bottles made from recycled glass from glass bottles made from raw materials.
(D) Purchasing and transport costs are not so much greater for recycled glass than for raw materials that they outweigh the savings in energy costs resulting from the use of recycled glass.
(E) The process of making molten glass from recycled glass requires fewer steps than does the process of making molten glass from raw materials.


first of all..A, C, and E can easily be eliminated. it's clearly between B and D.
D is more strong. if we negate D - then the argument falls apart. on the other hand, if we negate B, we can still be cost efficient. the argument says "by using recycled glass, cost efficiency can be attained". therefore, it is not needed for B to be true for the argument to be true.

D for me.
User avatar
G
sleepynut
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 85 [0]
Given Kudos: 905
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GRE 1: Q167 V147
Send PM
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   08 Jan 2017, 20:57
+1 for D

In B,we don't care whether the amount of glass currently recycled each year is enough to supply.As long as,the bottlers can make a large percentage of their bottles from recycled glass,they still benefit from the cost saving.On the other hand,if the additional costs,i.e. purchasing and transport costs,commensurate the saving cost,the bottler will not at all benefit from the cost-saving from the recycling process.
User avatar
D
abhishekdadarwal2009
Director
Director
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 552
Own Kudos [?]: 436 [0]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   09 Jan 2017, 14:26
The question clearly concludes that the cost can be saved by recycling the glass,but by making sure that the transportation and other charges are not very big so that the profits are still considerable. therfore D is the right answer.
avatar
B
skidstorm
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2018
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 44
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Nonprofit
GPA: 3.7
WE:Marketing (Advertising and PR)
Send PM
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   26 Jan 2018, 10:10
I fall into the trap of this question. One reason is the question is quite long, I cannot remember every detail.
I can tell B,C,E are all wrong.
A is wrong b/c the argument already states that the process is same.
avatar
B
surfingpirate
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Nov 2017
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   27 Jun 2018, 09:12
(D) Purchasing and transport costs are not so much greater for recycled glass than for raw materials that they outweigh the savings in energy costs resulting from the use of recycled glass

Option 1: Costs are high => would destroy the argument that there are cost savings. if it cost a billion dollars to transport, you wouldn't use recycled materials.
Option 2: Costs are low => would help the argument that there are cost savings
User avatar
B
Rainman91
Manager
Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2020
Posts: 89
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 120
Send PM
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink] New post   26 Sep 2022, 23:19
I've noticed that the conclusion is actually a theory. The conclusion states that when companies take a certain step, they would profit by some means. This makes D better than B. If the conclusion were like, Companies must take this step to make etc. benefits, then B might work.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from [#permalink]
26 Sep 2022, 23:19
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions