At an enormous research cost, a leading chemical company has developed a manufacturing process for converting wood fibers into a plastic. According to the company, this new plastic can be used for, among other things, the hulls of small sailboats. But what does the company think sailboat hulls used to be made of? Surely the mania for high technology can scarcely go further than this.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s conclusion?
The premise of the author is that the new process is only for the sake of higher technology. There are no other advantages to using this process.
(A) The plastic produced by the process is considerably lighter, stronger, and more watertight than wood.
Directly weakens the author's claim that the new process was invented only for the sake of higher technology by showing that there are other benefits from using the newer technology.
(B) The wood used in producing the plastic is itself in increasingly short supply.
This puts the new process in jeopardy as well. Since there is nothing mentioned about the new process extending the life of the hull, does not weaken the author's argument.
(C) The cost of the manufacturing process of the plastic increases the cost of producing a sailboat hull by 10 to 15 percent.
(D) Much of the cost of the research that developed the new process will be written off for tax purposes by the chemical company.
(E) The development of the new plastic is expected to help make the chemical company an important supplier of boat-building materials.
The author mentions that this is only one of the many uses of the process. Also, we don't know the current status of the company in the boat-building material production arena. Cannot be inferred.
OA is A. Can anyone tell me whats wrong with option E.
Please don't include the OA in your question. The goal of most users is to challenge themselves too. By providing the answer in the question, you are eliminating the incentive for them to attempt your question.