|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the [#permalink]
 01 Dec 2007, 13:27
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?
a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut
Please explain your answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2618
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
142
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Recycled Papers [#permalink]
01 Dec 2007, 13:33
tarek99 wrote: Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?
a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut
Please explain your answer
Either A or C. I vote C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3594
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 230
Kudos [?]:
1299
[0], given: 346
|
also C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Recycled Papers [#permalink]
03 Dec 2007, 07:32
tarek99 wrote: Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?
a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut
Please explain your answer
Between 'A' & 'C' ..
Will go for 'C'
Technological advances in prodution are the same for both new paper and recycled paper......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 524
Location: Indonesia
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
65
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Recycled Papers [#permalink]
03 Dec 2007, 08:30
tarek99 wrote: Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?
a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut
Please explain your answer
though A and C are very close, I will go with A
reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.
Amar
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
OA is C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Recycled Papers [#permalink]
03 Dec 2007, 17:46
Amardeep Sharma wrote: tarek99 wrote: Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?
a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut
Please explain your answer though A and C are very close, I will go with A reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced. Amar Amar,
At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 184
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Can anyone offer a compelling explanation as to why C is superior to A?
Both explain why the increased cost-efficiency hasn't made a dent in the price viability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
I think the reason why C is superior to A is that A addresses only one of the 2 elements at issue: the cost of unprocessed trees. even if the cost of the tree is cheaper, the technology used could still be expensive and, therefore, not result to efficiency. don't forget, in "resolve the paradox" question, you have to address how the 2 points at issue can co-exist. option A talks about only one of the 2 elements, which is the raw material, and doesn't even talk about technology. the correct anwer choice must mention how the 2 can exist together to produce the result mentioned in the argument: produce efficiency.
In option C, it talks about technology and our desired result of efficiency. now whether or not the unprocessed trees were expensive still reaches to our desired result of efficiency. that's how i see it at least and that's why it makes sense to me. hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 524
Location: Indonesia
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
65
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Recycled Papers [#permalink]
04 Dec 2007, 05:52
Beyond700 wrote: Amardeep Sharma wrote: tarek99 wrote: Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?
a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut
Please explain your answer though A and C are very close, I will go with A reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced. Amar Amar, At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice). oh ya, you are absolutely correct, you hit the nail in right place...thnx buddy 
Amar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Skewed wrote: Can anyone offer a compelling explanation as to why C is superior to A?
Both explain why the increased cost-efficiency hasn't made a dent in the price viability.
For me, choice 'A' fails to cover cost for trees waiting to be cut. The cause here has a very short life span.
In other words only those trees that are already cut become cheaper and not the whole process of cutting the fresh trees to produce new paper.
Only long term and definite causes will have a direct impact on 'point of price viability' and not the adhoc ones.
Also the quantity of 'cut trees' is ignored, it could be so small that it may not influence the market price
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Recycled Papers [#permalink]
04 Dec 2007, 06:09
Amardeep Sharma wrote: Beyond700 wrote: Amardeep Sharma wrote: tarek99 wrote: Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at $2.12 per ream of paper.
Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?
a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.
b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.
c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.
d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.
e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut
Please explain your answer though A and C are very close, I will go with A reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced. Amar Amar, At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice). oh ya, you are absolutely correct, you hit the nail in right place...thnx buddy Amar We are in the same boat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR: Recycled Papers
[#permalink]
04 Dec 2007, 06:09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
