At an enormous research cost, a leading chemical company has developed

Question

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.

The author’s opinion of the manufacturing process described in the passage is based primarily on the fact that

(A) plastic is unlikely to be durable enough for high-quality sailboat hulls
(B) the research costs of developing the process outweigh any savings possible from the use of the plastic
(C) a small sailboat is not normally regarded as a high-tech product
(D) hulls for small sailboats can be made from wood without converting it into plastic
(E) many other spheres of human activity are in far greater need of technological research

CrackverbalGMAT · Accepted Answer

This is a nice, inference based question. The key lies in interpreting the sarcastic comment mentioned in the stimulus. But before we get to that, let us go through the entire stimulus:

Premises: 
1) A leading chemical company has developed a manufacturing process for converting wood fibers into a plastic.
2) This new plastic can be used for the hulls of small sailboats.

Conclusion:  The mania for high technology can scarcely go further than this.

From the conclusion, we can surmise that the author does not rate the innovation of the chemical company very highly. It is driven by the usage promoted ie; that this plastic can be used for hulls of small sailboats. Given this background, the sarcastic question posed in the stimulus, "But what does the company think sailboat hulls used to be made of?", can have only one answer. Given that the author seems to think of the use of this plastic on hulls as not being an important innovation, it must follow that the hulls used to be made from wood earlier. Only then, converting the wood to plastic and then using the plastic to make hulls can be truly considered to be a waste of resources, technology just for the sake of it, or, in other words, "mania for high technology".

Let us examine the answer options:

(A) plastic is unlikely to be durable enough for high-quality sailboat hulls  This takes the argument much further than the implication in the stimulus. Eliminate.

(B) the research costs of developing the process outweigh any savings possible from the use of the plastic  The passage questions the very utility of converting wood to plastic for use in hulls, costs and profits do not come into the picture at all. Eliminate.

(C) a small sailboat is not normally regarded as a high-tech product  The passage is about the usage of plastic made from wood in sailboat hulls, not about the sailboat themselves. Irrelevant. Eliminate.

(D) hulls for small sailboats can be made from wood without converting it into plastic  Correct answer and consistent with our pre-thinking.

(E) many other spheres of human activity are in far greater need of technological research  The argument in the passage is restricted to using plastic made from wood in sailboat hulls, irrespective of need of research in other fields. Irrelevant. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

Rishabh121 · Answer

I picked B, but after further analysis, D is actually the best answer here.

is the unstated answer to the cheeky rhetoric by the author "But what does the company think sailboat hulls used to be made of?. Hence D is the correct assumption.

Irrelevant. The argument is not interested in the durability of plastic.
  Irrelevant. The conclusion is not at all about "cost-saving".
  Irrelevant. The argument isn't interested about the "tech-iness" of a small sailboat.
  out-of-scope.

Hope this helps! Please correct if I'm wrong.

Thank you!

DhruvS · Answer

Request the experts to elaborate why (D) is correct ? May be I am not able to connect the sarcasm and the answer (D) I had marked (C) as the answer....though I was not very sure of it as well....

st1gg3r · Answer

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?

So according to the author hulls used to be made of Wood.

A - durability of plastic is out of scope
B - Nothing has been said about savings
C - classifying products as high tech is not what the author mentions
 D - Yup. Why research to convert wood into plastic if hulls were already made of wood 
E - author is concerned with sailboat not other areas for tech research.

Bambi2021 · Answer

"But what does the company think sailboat hulls used to be made of?"

This implies they used to be made of plastic, not wood. There might be an advantage of converting them into plastic, but the author means that plastic can be made in a much simpler and cheaper way than the intricate process of converting wood.

Therefore, I think the OA is debatable. You would not express yourself in such a sarcastic way if hulls were earlier made of wood. If they were, then the company might just counter your argument with the fact that plastic is a better material for this usage and hence the conversion is necessary.

Posted from my mobile device

Gio96 · Answer

I agree with you, I had the same thinking

"But what does the company think sailboat hulls used to be made of?"

This implies they used to be made of plastic, not wood.

LUBABAYIMER · Answer

The answer is D, because if it is possible to make small boats out of wood, the company will not be profitable because changing the boat to plastic will require another cost.

said.tojiboev · Answer

(A)  Incorrect:  Assumes plastic's durability without evidence.

(B)  Irrelevant:  Focuses on costs, not the suitability of plastic.

(C)  Irrelevant:  Discusses perceptions, not material choice.

(D)  Correct:  Challenges the need for converting wood into plastic.

(E)  Irrelevant:  Discusses broader research priorities, not specific to sailboat hulls.

ClaireCHEN · Answer

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.

The author expressed hidden disagreement to the ethusiasm of unpragmatic tech research from this leading chemical company coz this plastic is not gonna be useful for building the hull of sailboats.

P-C for company's manufactoring process:
Premise : This company has passion for tech research
 Conclusion : This company invests in the manufacturing process of plastic (also why the manufacturing process exists)

Author's opinion is to disagrees, so any option that can break the premise is the right answer

The author’s opinion of the  manufacturing process  described in the passage is based primarily on the fact that

(A) plastic is unlikely to be durable enough for high-quality sailboat hulls -- NO, even if the plastic is durable, the company would still wanna invest
(B) the research costs of developing the process outweigh any savings possible from the use of the plastic --NO, if the return of investment of this plastic is positive, the company could invest more on this manufacturing process bcs of their ethusiasm
(C) a small sailboat is not normally regarded as a high-tech product -- NO, it's irrelevant to the passion and the manufacturing process of this company
(D) hulls for small sailboats can be made from wood without converting it into plastic -- YES, coz if hulls can be made without wood, then converting wood fibers to plastics is a waste
(E) many other spheres of human activity are in far greater need of technological research -- NO, irrelevant to to passion and the manufactoring process of this company

Duncomo · Answer

I think this one is pretty difficult if you live far from the coast or are just unaware of what a hull is on a sailboat. I guess sailboats have been around for centuries, and of course mr Columbus didn't have plastic in his day, but good luck if you didn't pick up on that little bit of sarcasm on this one like me HAHA!

adithya000 · Answer

D says, wood can make hulls.
then we can say that the author finds it funny because 
Why- Woods to plastic to hulls 
Why not- Directly wood to hulls? as it can save lot of money by avoiding the conversion of wood fibers to plastic.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

At an enormous research cost, a leading chemical company has developed

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

At an enormous research cost, a leading chemical company has developed

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards