Automobile manufacturers defend their substitution of steel frames in cars with cheaper plastic components by claiming that consumer demand is ruled by a desire for light cars with crumple zones rather than as a result of corporate profit motives. However, if this trend were true, then carbon reinforced tubing, which is lighter than steel and stronger, would be available as an option. It is not.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument against the automobile manufacturer's claim?

A)When carbon tubing was introduced in the market place, it was not yet commercially viable to produce it in large volumes.

B)Automobile companies are reluctant to invest in high volume industrial technology to produce carbon tubing until profits from the sale of small scale commercial carbon products, such as bicycle frames, have stabilized.

C)Some types of carbon tubing for sports equipment are in such high demand that there is a back log of several weeks for orders.

D)Because carbon tubing has entirely different chemical properties from plastic frame components, new construction techniques will be required for automobiles.

E)Any valid comparison among steel, plastic and carbon frames must be based on identical performance measures.
_________________

Thanks for sharing! Seems like a very good way to solve the problem!
_________________