Premise - As per the terms of the agreement, all metals that are unearthed will go to Company X and all non-metals will go to Company Y.
Conclusion - All the Zinconium that is dug out should go to Company Y.

Assumption - Zinconium is a non-metal.

To strengthen the argument's conclusion, we must provide additional information to support why Zinconium should go to Y.

(A) Zinconium sells for very high prices in the international market.
This information has nothing to do with the conclusion.
(B) The processing of Zinconium requires specialised machinery that is already available with Company Y.
This does not mean that X can't have the machinery if and when required.
(C) The agreement between the two companies has no provision of sharing any of the resources that are dug out.
This looks correct. This is the additional information supporting why all the Zinconium should go to Y.
(D) In terms of its chemical properties, Zinconium has more characteristics in common with non-metals than with metals.
This looks a trap.The argument did not say about partial characteristics. The only assumption (not an additional information) is that Zinconium is non-metal. We don't know if it has some chemical characteristics of metal and non-metal, will it be considered metal or non-metal
(E) Company Y will bear a larger proportion of the total cost of conducting the mining operations than will Company X.
This information does not strengthen the conclusion as we have no idea how much profitable Zinconium is.

IMO C

Companies X and Y have decided to enter into a joint venture to conduct mining operations together. As per the terms of the agreement, all metals that are unearthed will go to Company X and all non-metals will go to Company Y. Thus, all the Zinconium that is dug out should go to Company Y.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?


(A) Zinconium sells for very high prices in the international market. Irrelevant

(B) The processing of Zinconium requires specialised machinery that is already available with Company Y. Incorrect

support argument, but dont know Zinconium is metal or non metal

(C) The agreement between the two companies has no provision of sharing any of the resources that are dug out. Incorrect

we need to know Zinconium is metal or non metal

(D) In terms of its chemical properties, Zinconium has more characteristics in common with non-metals than with metals. Correct

this choice show the possibility that Zinconium is non-metals

(E) Company Y will bear a larger proportion of the total cost of conducting the mining operations than will Company X. Incorrect

this cant show why Zinconium should go to Company Y

Companies X and Y have decided to enter into a joint venture to conduct mining operations together. As per the terms of the agreement, all metals that are unearthed will go to Company X and all non-metals will go to Company Y. Thus, all the Zinconium that is dug out should go to Company Y.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

If this is a trap, well it got me haha.
X+Y work together
Unearthed metals -> X
Non metals -> Y
Therefore, Zinconium -> Y

From the argument, we know that Zinconium should be a non metal.
Strengthen this.

(A) Zinconium sells for very high prices in the international market.
Not sufficient. We are not given any price factors.

(B) The processing of Zinconium requires specialised machinery that is already available with Company Y.
We don't care about the processing process of Zinconium.

(C) The agreement between the two companies has no provision of sharing any of the resources that are dug out.
This does not fit with the argument that the two companies are in a joint effort to mine out resources. Herein lies the assumption that all nonmetals go to Y and all metals go to X. If there is a blend of chemical properties in a resource, then we need a different assumption that goes here. Hence D.

(D) In terms of its chemical properties, Zinconium has more characteristics in common with non-metals than with metals.
This looks like the correct answer. Since Non-Metals go to Y, and Z goes to Y, we have to assume that Z is a non metal.

(E) Company Y will bear a larger proportion of the total cost of conducting the mining operations than will Company X.
We don't care about the share of costs.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

Strengthens the argument means- We need to support the conclusion. Distribution, if Metals dug out then it goes to Company X and if non-metal then it goes to Company Y. And, Zinconium goes to company Y.

(A) Zinconium sells for very high prices in the international market.-> It is not part of discussion.

(B) The processing of Zinconium requires specialised machinery that is already available with Company Y.-> It is not part of discussion.

(C) The agreement between the two companies has no provision of sharing any of the resources that are dug out.-> Resources! It was not discussed in passage.

(D) In terms of its chemical properties, Zinconium has more characteristics in common with non-metals than with metals.-> Okay. This is strengthening the reason as Zinconium goes to Company Y.

(E) Company Y will bear a larger proportion of the total cost of conducting the mining operations than will Company X-> It is incorrect.

So, I think D.

The OA is D.

The stimulus states that all non metals go to Y and concludes by saying that the mineral Zinconium goes to Y. The only way to strengthen the conclusion is to prove the Zinconium is a non metal, which is only possible if Option D is true.

Option B could be true in the real world but as nothing is mentioned in the stimulus regarding the same, it is not our answer.

Options A,C and E are out of scope.

IMO D

Companies X and Y have decided to enter into a joint venture to conduct mining operations together. As per the terms of the agreement, all metals that are unearthed will go to Company X and all non-metals will go to Company Y. Thus, all the Zinconium that is dug out should go to Company Y.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?


(A) Zinconium sells for very high prices in the international market.
Out of scope

(B) The processing of Zinconium requires specialised machinery that is already available with Company Y.
Ok- what do we know if X can't buy the same? No.
What if X had the means to buy? This will not strengthen the argument.

(C) The agreement between the two companies has no provision of sharing any of the resources that are dug out.
Does not impact the argument.

(D) In terms of its chemical properties, Zinconium has more characteristics in common with non-metals than with metals.
Hence the reason why Z should go to Y.
From the argument we can deduce that Z is a non metal.

(E) Company Y will bear a larger proportion of the total cost of conducting the mining operations than will Company X.
Cost is not in scope.

IMO D

We have to support the conclusion - zinconium going to company Y

It is clearly stated in the stimulus that company Y receives all the non-metals and option D states that Zinconium has more properties of non metals, which strengthens the conclusion.

Official Explanation

Answer: D

The argument clearly states that all metals go to Company X and all non-metals go to Company Y. It then concludes that Zinconium should go to Company Y. Then it obviously assumes that Zinconium is more similar to a non-metal than to a metal. D is the correct answer.

(A) The selling price of Zinconium is of no use to us.

(B) This gives you an additional reason why Zinconium should go to Company Y but this has nothing to do with the evidence that is used in the argument. Remember that we always have to strengthen or weaken the connection between the evidence and the conclusion. Company X could always buy such machinery for all we know.

(C) This makes no difference to our assumption.

(E) Same as B.
_________________