It is currently 28 Jun 2017, 14:46

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 251
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 08:05
1
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:16) correct 39% (01:28) wrong based on 202 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those
rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to
sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,
the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?

(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete.
(B) After the beverage companies have switched over to the new plastic rings, a substantial
number of the old plastic rings will persist in most aquatic and woodland environments.
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings.
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs
because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1382
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 08:45
1
KUDOS
rampuria wrote:
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those
rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to
sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,
the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?

(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete. -> Irrelevant ,lets talk about pot switch over effects
(B) After the beverage companies have switched over to the new plastic rings, a substantial number of the old plastic rings will persist in most aquatic and woodland environments. -> this is ok but when compared to E i did not find competent enough
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings. -> OOS
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight. -> strengthens the rep's argument
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them. -> i found this interesting

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

Looking forward to getting explanation on how B wins over E
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 147
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 09:00
rampuria wrote:
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those
rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to
sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,
the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?

(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete.
(B) After the beverage companies have switched over to the new plastic rings, a substantial
number of the old plastic rings will persist in most aquatic and woodland environments.
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings.
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs
because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

E looks very tempting, but a closer look clarifies that 'aquatic animals' are out of scope. There is no mention of bags flowing into water bodies. The argument was to protect wild animals & not fishes and ofcourse we cant call fishes as wild animals.

Given less than 2 minutes to solve this question, I'd have marked E. Even if I had marked B it'd have been with a lot of guilt & skepticism. A real tricky question.
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1261
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 09:08
WHt I can make out from B is : the representative thinks that once there z a complete switch over there ill be no threat. BUt B says even after there is complete shift from old to new rings, still there will be a large no of old rings. So the threat is very much there. So B shld be the answer.
But honestly speaking I reached this conclusion only after knowing the ans oderwise in exams, I wld hv prompltly chosen E
rampuria wrote:
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those
rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to
sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,
the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?

(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete.
(B) After the beverage companies have switched over to the new plastic rings, a substantial
number of the old plastic rings will persist in most aquatic and woodland environments.

(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings.
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs
because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

Last edited by ritula on 02 Oct 2008, 09:09, edited 1 time in total.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1382
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 09:09
jatinrai wrote:
rampuria wrote:
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those
rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to
sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,
the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?

(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete.
(B) After the beverage companies have switched over to the new plastic rings, a substantial
number of the old plastic rings will persist in most aquatic and woodland environments.
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings.
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs
because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

E looks very tempting, but a closer look clarifies that 'aquatic animals' are out of scope. There is no mention of bags flowing into water bodies. The argument was to protect wild animals & not fishes and ofcourse we cant call fishes as wild animals.

Given less than 2 minutes to solve this question, I'd have marked E. Even if I had marked B it'd have been with a lot of guilt & skepticism. A real tricky question.

Even B talks about aquatic animals !!! again E talks about threat due to ingestion of toxic elements !!may be this makes E a weaker option
and B scores here saying even though the old to new switch is taken place but still old plastic still prevails !!!
hence the threat cannot be obviated or eliminated
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 806
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 09:37
1
KUDOS
its not E because the argument says new plastic rings will prevent suffocation, not death by ingestion

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 970
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 11:13
1
KUDOS
Man, I chose E in a heartbeat.
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 243
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 11:32
IMO B . The reason is already explained by ritula.

Note that the conclusion here is 'Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated. '

Anything that can prove the above statement wrong or hamper the above statement will weaken it.

E is outside the scope of the argument ; only B weakens tha argument by saying that even if the new plastic is in play, the old plastic will still be there, and so the threat to the animals will not be eliminated.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10148
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2015, 03:37
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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10148
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2016, 08:05
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.
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 47
GPA: 3.8
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2016, 16:14
jatinrai wrote:
rampuria wrote:
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs of beverage cans together
pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and
suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those
rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to
sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings, therefore,
the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative’s argument?

(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete.
(B) After the beverage companies have switched over to the new plastic rings, a substantial
number of the old plastic rings will persist in most aquatic and woodland environments.
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings.
(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs
because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight.
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.

OA is B. I thought that it would be D or E. Please explain

E looks very tempting, but a closer look clarifies that 'aquatic animals' are out of scope. There is no mention of bags flowing into water bodies. The argument was to protect wild animals & not fishes and ofcourse we cant call fishes as wild animals.

Given less than 2 minutes to solve this question, I'd have marked E. Even if I had marked B it'd have been with a lot of guilt & skepticism. A real tricky question.

I only read the first few responses so I apologize if this is repeated...My reasoning for B over E (and it was a close one, i can relate to you all!), is that the conclusion mentions suffocation specifically. Now, my reasoning may be flawed but upon reading E it mentioned ingestion, not specifically suffocation. Does that make sense? If not, I merely got lucky
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold   [#permalink] 05 Oct 2016, 16:14
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 Ring of Commerce 7 19 Oct 2016, 07:22
15 Plastic beverage containers manufactured from 12 20 Jul 2014, 07:30
6 Wine Company Representative: The corks of red wine bottles 7 09 Oct 2016, 11:34
2 Wine Company Representative: The corks of red wine bottles 4 08 Feb 2017, 05:03
6 One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage 11 06 Apr 2016, 10:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by