GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Oct 2018, 03:23

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2008, 08:05
3
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:48) correct 39% (01:48) wrong based on 448 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.


Source: LSAT
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 131
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Please explain your answer.

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
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1131
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 02 Oct 2008, 09:09
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.

Please explain your answer.

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

Originally posted by ritula on 02 Oct 2008, 09:08.
Last edited by ritula on 02 Oct 2008, 09:09, edited 1 time in total.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1242
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2008, 09:09
1
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.

Please explain your answer.

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
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 715
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2008, 09:37
2
its not E because the argument says new plastic rings will prevent suffocation, not death by ingestion

B is the answer
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 218
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 39
GPA: 3.8
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Please explain your answer.

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
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2086
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2017, 21:49
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.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - the threat of suffocation will be eliminated after the switchover is complete.


(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete. - Incorrect - This answer does not hurt the argument because the author qualified the conclusion to account for the date of the switchover, thereby inoculating against this avenue of attack
(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. - Correct - This answer undermines the representative’s conclusion by showing that even after the switchover is complete, the threat to animals from plastic rings will persist
(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings. - Out of scope
(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. - Out of scope
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.- ISWAT - the conclusion is specifically about suffocation, and answer choice (E) does not address suffocation

Answer B
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 240
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2018, 12:16
"the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose " is the key and yes, B attacks the conclusion.
D just talks about a scenario.
E is closed, but E is a trap. E discusses another consequence which is out of scope of the argument. Also, in E, "when ingested in substantial quantities by them" shows that the threat can still be eliminated if "ingested quantities" is not large.
Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1210
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2018, 18:42
nightblade354 generis VeritasKarishma PeepalTree assaad Harshgmat


Quote:
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?


Paraphrasing:
New rings / old rings: Old rings get entangled -> suffocation in wild animals
So, use of old rings SHOULD be discarded.
New rings: disintegrate after 3 days exposure to sunlight.
So no suffocation/health hazard to wild animals.

Conclusion: the threat of suffocation that OLD plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.

Premise: new rings disintegrates only after 3 days to exposure.


Quote:
(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.

I am really concerned how can this be OA with the usage of most and narrowing the scope
from wild animals to aquatic and woodland environments

Plus why I can not assume that the new rings will disintegrate and prevent health threat to wild animals?

Quote:
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.


Can I not discard (E) seeing that scope is (E) is limited to only aquatic animals?
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 451
Location: India
Schools: INSEAD Jan '19
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 3.82
WE: Engineering (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2018, 08:50
adkikani wrote:
nightblade354 generis VeritasKarishma PeepalTree assaad Harshgmat


Quote:
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?


Let me try......

I have read the question stem first and know it is type weaken....

Now I read the stimulus

After going through argument at this point my thinking :

OK ..So new plastic rings will eliminate threat of suffocation to wild animals...Good

a) But what about the existing/old plastic rings? They are still a threat ....

b) Does new plastic rings pose any new kind of threat??

Remember I have to weaken the BCR claim...


Paraphrasing:
New rings / old rings: Old rings get entangled -> suffocation in wild animals
So, use of old rings SHOULD be discarded.
New rings: disintegrate after 3 days exposure to sunlight.
So no suffocation/health hazard to wild animals.

Conclusion: the threat of suffocation that OLD plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.

Premise: new rings disintegrates only after 3 days to exposure.


Quote:
(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.



I am really concerned how can this be OA with the usage of most and narrowing the scope
from wild animals to aquatic and woodland environments

Mate..woodland -------is-------->forestland

So it is stated indirectly that in the environment of the wild animals a substantial number of the old plastic rings will persist....so wild animal can get entangled and
suffocate as a result.....Definitely weakens the BCR claim that "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." Threat because of old existing plastic rings not eliminated.


Plus why I can not assume that the new rings will disintegrate and prevent health threat to wild animals? - You are right to assume that but only partially...as the BCR is silent about the threat because of old existing plastic rings. And it still exists.

Quote:
(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic
animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.


Can I not discard (E) seeing that scope is (E) is limited to only aquatic animals?


Yes..but it depends upon the available answer choices...

In GMAT what I am targeting is to select the best answer choice among the given choices and not the perfect one....

Here B) is definitely better than E)

Hope this helps !!

_________________

It seems Kudos button not working correctly with all my posts...

Please check if it is working with this post......

is it?....

Anyways...Thanks for trying :cool:

GMAT Club Bot
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs &nbs [#permalink] 18 Sep 2018, 08:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.