anindame wrote:
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.
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)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep
close
13 Mar 2016, 03:21
36%
(02:23)
wrong 
