Bunuel wrote:
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?
(A) The plastic produced by the process is considerably lighter, stronger, and more watertight than wood.
(B) The wood used in producing the plastic is itself in increasingly short supply.
(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.
As per the Stem - Using plastic made of wood fibers is of no benefit in terms of technological advancements since one could have used wood fibers to make boats. We need to weaken the stem.
Pre-thinking : If there is any benefit of using plastic made of wood fibers over wood fibers - argument would fall parts.
(A) In line of pre-thinking. It makes sense to produce plastic in this case.
(B) It kind of strengthens the argument. Also partially irrelevant here
(C) Talks about cost - so mention of benefits of plastic - irrelevant here
(D) Out of Scope
(E) Even though chemical company will/may benefit from development of new plastic, it doesn't weaken the original argument.