Automobile manufacturers defend their substitution of steel frames in

Can someone please explain why B is preferred over D, which shows that the company is not reluctant to make investments in new technology (cost burden)

StillON

I believe option B hits the main argument directly, i.e., corporate profits. Option D leaves it on the reader to interpret that something extra, in this case additional cost on construction techniques.

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB ReedArnoldMPREP GMATNinja ExpertsGlobal5 MartyTargetTestPrep RonTargetTestPrep

OA – B
I eliminated B because it says, reluctant to invest … until profits … have stabilized.
Its just like once funding for the purchase of carbon tubing is secured they will invest, its not that they will not invest at all.
Whereas
Option D – that since they will have to incur cost (for new construction tech) which will impact profit, so they are being profit oriented and not listening to consumer demand.

Can you please correct me

We need to give an option that is against the claim.
What is the claim? - We are driven by a desire for light cars, not by profit motives.


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

Talks about the past - when it was introduced. We don't know what the present situation is.

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.

Companies don't want to invest in this tech until the tech has proved "profitable" in another industry. This means the companies are focussing on profitability.
Hence, it is against the claim of the companies.

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.

Whether the backlog is because of unavailability of carbon tubing, we don't know. But even if we assume that it is, then it is a valid reason why carbon tubing is not a good substitute. Irrespective of cost, it doesn't seem to be available. Then it is not against the claim since carbon tubing may not be a viable substitute.

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

Till some time ago, the companies had infra for steel frames. They started using plastic components. We don't know whether plastic worked on the same infra or new infra had to be created. We don't know whether carbon tubes would have worked on the same steel frame infra or new infra would have been required.
For a meaningful distinction, we need to compare the infra required for plastic and carbon components with infra required for steel frames. Option (D) compares carbon infra with plastic infra.
Besides, it says that carbon will need new construction tech. Is it available (irrespective of cost), we don't know. Then, the issue might be of viability rather commercials.

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

Doesn't imply anything about the claim.

Answer (B)

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.