Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs

Question

Competition Mode Question

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.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) None of the new plastic rings can disintegrate after only two days’ exposure to sunlight.

(B) The switchover to the new plastic rings can be completed without causing significant financial hardship to the beverage companies.

(C) Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate.

(D) Use of the old plastic rings poses no substantial threat to wild animals other than that of suffocation.

(E) Any wild animal that becomes entangled in the old plastic rings will suffocate as a result.

Farina · Answer

I think it is C. Because it is assumed that animals will not be entangled in the new ring and after 2-3 days it will disintegrate, so basically it is safe to build new rings of this design.

freedom128 · Answer

(A) actually weakens the stimulus argument. If we could assume that some of the plastic rings would disintegrate after two days that would possibly lower the threat of suffocation.

(B) is great for the beverage companies, but does nothing for the argument itself.

(C) is the CORRECT ANSWER. Here is where we fill in the gap on those all important three days. Now that we know that nothing will happen to the animals during those three days, the argument is logically whole.

(D) is eliminated by the stimulus phrase, "once we complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings." The stimulus has already addressed this issue, and therefore it cannot be the assumption on which the argument depends.

(E) definitely supports the plan to switch over to the new rings, BUT is not necessary for the conclusion to be true.

FINAL ANSWER IS (C)

cenkvardar · Answer

As far as I believe the correct answer should be  D

mohitpandey · Answer

Option d and e talks opposite to what author's idea is while a is not relevant with assumption we are looking for option b is out of topic that's why option c best fits in

Posted from my mobile device

Archit3110 · Answer

conclusion of the argument ; 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.

use negation technique to find answer
 
IMO C;

Wild animals will become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate.

option C is correct

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.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) None of the new plastic rings can disintegrate after only two days’ exposure to sunlight.

(B) The switchover to the new plastic rings can be completed without causing significant financial hardship to the beverage companies.

(C) Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate.

(D) Use of the old plastic rings poses no substantial threat to wild animals other than that of suffocation.

(E) Any wild animal that becomes entangled in the old plastic rings will suffocate as a result.

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  the threat of suffocation will be eliminated;
  companies will use those rings that disintegrates after three days’ exposure.
  animals won't suffocate before three days!

Ans (C)

unraveled · Answer

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.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

Old plastic rings cause a great harm to wild animals since they get entangled and suffocate to death. Beverage companies, knowing that, have found a new plastic that will disintegrate just after three days of exposure to sunlight. 
Author concludes that once this is done by a companies the problem of animals getting suffocated would be eliminated. Thus his/her argument bases the conclusion either on the fact that in three days no animals would get entangled in the new plastic rings or the switchover would happen instantly. Another possible assumption can be that the new plastic rings will cause minimal or no damage.

(A) None of the new plastic rings can disintegrate after only two days’ exposure to sunlight. - WRONG. Scope is already covered in argument.

(B) The switchover to the new plastic rings can be completed without causing significant financial hardship to the beverage companies. - WRONG. Even if we negate the option it does not impact the argument since financial hardship is not discussed in the argument.

(C) Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate. - CORRECT. If this is not true then wild animals would still get entangled within three days thus causing damage to wild animals. It then fails the argument.

(D) Use of the old plastic rings poses no substantial threat to wild animals other than that of suffocation. - WRONG. Other threats not discussed so not an assumption that can break the argument.

(E) Any wild animal that becomes entangled in the old plastic rings will suffocate as a result. - WRONG. Already covered in argument's scope.

IMO Answer C.

minustark · Answer

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.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) None of the new plastic rings can disintegrate after only two days’ exposure to sunlight.> bypasses the main conclusion of the argument.

(B) The switchover to the new plastic rings can be completed without causing significant financial hardship to the beverage companies. > the question doesn't concern about the cost to the companies, hence irrelevant.

(C) Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate. > yes, this is the underlying assumption. So, C is the CA.

(D) Use of the old plastic rings poses no substantial threat to wild animals other than that of suffocation. > we are talking about only the danger of suffocation here, not other problems.

(E) Any wild animal that becomes entangled in the old plastic rings will suffocate as a result. > whether they will or not is not the issue here.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards