Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
17 Dec 2019, 04:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
62% (01:41) correct
38%
(02:07)
wrong
based on 4447
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
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
15 Aug 2020, 04:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
23 Dec 2019, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
I picked B, but after further analysis, D is actually the best answer here.
[D] 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.
[A] Irrelevant. The argument is not interested in the durability of plastic.
[B] Irrelevant. The conclusion is not at all about "cost-saving".
[C] Irrelevant. The argument isn't interested about the "tech-iness" of a small sailboat.
[E] out-of-scope.
Hope this helps! Please correct if I'm wrong.
Thank you!
[D] 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.
[A] Irrelevant. The argument is not interested in the durability of plastic.
[B] Irrelevant. The conclusion is not at all about "cost-saving".
[C] Irrelevant. The argument isn't interested about the "tech-iness" of a small sailboat.
[E] out-of-scope.
Hope this helps! Please correct if I'm wrong.
Thank you!
