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

It is currently 21 Oct 2019, 05:41

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

Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 21
Schools: ISB '18
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 31 Jan 2018, 18:40
2
6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

84% (01:19) correct 16% (01:41) wrong based on 265 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution into the atmosphere. In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs. Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits.

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

(A) allow for the possibility that Bando may not want to change its manufacturing process

(B) does not supply information about other possible ways for Bando to reduce pollution

(C) consider that the relative sales volumes of a company's products are not necessarily proportional to profits

(D) identify any alternative methods by which to convince Bando to change its manufacturing process

(E) consider that a boycott may take too long to achieve its purpose.

Here conclusion is that boycott of bulbs will cause company B to change its manf processes as boycott of bulbs (most sold product) would mean damage to profits.

Here: one assumption is that sales of product are proportional to profits which option C) addresses.

but there is one more assumption that damage to profits would convince company B to change manf processes

Doesn't option A challenge the assumption damage in profits would convince company B to change its manf processes?

Can someone pls explain ?

Originally posted by sakshamgmat on 19 Mar 2017, 04:41.
Last edited by hazelnut on 31 Jan 2018, 18:40, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question.
Senior SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1348
Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2017, 23:43
1
1
sakshamgmat wrote:
Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution into the atmosphere. In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs. Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits.

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

(A) allow for the possibility that Bando may not want to change its manufacturing process
(B) does not supply information about other possible ways for Bando to reduce pollution
(C) consider that the relative sales volumes of a company's products are not necessarily proportional to profits
(D) identify any alternative methods by which to convince Bando to change its manufacturing process
(E) consider that a boycott may take too long to achieve its purpose.


sakshamgmat, Next time, please edit the stimulus properly and the source is NOT Official Guide..

Step 1: Identify the question

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

The word “flawed” indicates that this is either a Flaw or a Weaken question. “If true” does NOT appear, so this is a Flaw question. I'll write down “Fl” on my scrap paper

Step 2: Deconstruct the argument

Environ-ist: manuf → atmo pollutn
boyc bulbs (↑ sales) → so company ∆ manuf
Bando sells ↑ bulbs → boyc → ↑ damage to prof

Step 3: State the goal

The environmentalist doesn't like that Bando pollutes. Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, so the environmentalist wants to boycott those bulbs to do the most damage to Bando'sprofits (according to this environmentalist, anyway), and then the hope is that this will all cause the company to change its manufacturing process.

I need to find an answer that will articulate a flaw in that reasoning. I've already thought of one. The environmentalist is assuming that just because Bando sells more light bulbs than anything else, the company is also earning the most profits from those products. But there's no evidence to support that. Also, consumers might not actually agree to boycott Bando.

Step 4: Work from wrong to right

(A) If anything, it could be argued that the environmentalist is already assuming the company will not want to change—that's why the environmentalist thinks he or she has to organize a boycott to change the company's mind.
(B) In the real world, I agree that environmentalist's should explore all possible ways…but the question asks me to find a flaw in this particular plan about the boycott. This doesn't apply to that plan.
(C) CORRECT. This sounds kind of like what I said before. It's a little abstract, so I'm not sure I fully understand all of it, but it does say that sales aren't necessarily proportional to profits. I'll keep this one in.
(D) This is like choice (B). It'd be good in general for the environmentalist to do this…but this doesn't help me figure out a flaw in the boycott plan specifically.
(E) I think what really matters is whether the plan is going to work at all, not how long it takes. The argument doesn't have any requirements about how long it will take to get Bando to change its process.
_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 21
Schools: ISB '18
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2017, 03:31
ziyuen wrote:
sakshamgmat wrote:
Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution into the atmosphere. In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs. Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits.

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

(A) allow for the possibility that Bando may not want to change its manufacturing process
(B) does not supply information about other possible ways for Bando to reduce pollution
(C) consider that the relative sales volumes of a company's products are not necessarily proportional to profits
(D) identify any alternative methods by which to convince Bando to change its manufacturing process
(E) consider that a boycott may take too long to achieve its purpose.


sakshamgmat, Next time, please edit the stimulus properly and the source is NOT Official Guide..

Step 1: Identify the question

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

The word “flawed” indicates that this is either a Flaw or a Weaken question. “If true” does NOT appear, so this is a Flaw question. I'll write down “Fl” on my scrap paper

Step 2: Deconstruct the argument

Environ-ist: manuf → atmo pollutn
boyc bulbs (↑ sales) → so company ∆ manuf
Bando sells ↑ bulbs → boyc → ↑ damage to prof

Step 3: State the goal

The environmentalist doesn't like that Bando pollutes. Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, so the environmentalist wants to boycott those bulbs to do the most damage to Bando'sprofits (according to this environmentalist, anyway), and then the hope is that this will all cause the company to change its manufacturing process.

I need to find an answer that will articulate a flaw in that reasoning. I've already thought of one. The environmentalist is assuming that just because Bando sells more light bulbs than anything else, the company is also earning the most profits from those products. But there's no evidence to support that. Also, consumers might not actually agree to boycott Bando.

Step 4: Work from wrong to right

(A) If anything, it could be argued that the environmentalist is already assuming the company will not want to change—that's why the environmentalist thinks he or she has to organize a boycott to change the company's mind.
(B) In the real world, I agree that environmentalist's should explore all possible ways…but the question asks me to find a flaw in this particular plan about the boycott. This doesn't apply to that plan.
(C) CORRECT. This sounds kind of like what I said before. It's a little abstract, so I'm not sure I fully understand all of it, but it does say that sales aren't necessarily proportional to profits. I'll keep this one in.
(D) This is like choice (B). It'd be good in general for the environmentalist to do this…but this doesn't help me figure out a flaw in the boycott plan specifically.
(E) I think what really matters is whether the plan is going to work at all, not how long it takes. The argument doesn't have any requirements about how long it will take to get Bando to change its process.


Thanks for the response.I don't see any problem with question stimulus as far as editing is concerned.

I understand your reasoning here but the
environmentalist's goal is to convince the company to change its processes.

He suggests a boycott of the bulbs (highest selling product) which would cause damage to profits and hence , the company would change its processes.

What ,if suppose I am the CEO of this company and I am adamant that no matter what I wont change the processes,let boycott my company's bulbs as I feel it would set a wrong example for the future.

I think one assumption here is that damage in profits would imply change in processes.

Doesn't A option actually mean that the company may not want to change its manufacturing process even after the boycott plan ?

Waiting to hear your thoughts on this .

Thanks,
Saksham.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Posts: 11
Re: Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2019, 14:26
sakshamgmat wrote:
ziyuen wrote:
sakshamgmat wrote:
Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution into the atmosphere. In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs. Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits.

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

(A) allow for the possibility that Bando may not want to change its manufacturing process
(B) does not supply information about other possible ways for Bando to reduce pollution
(C) consider that the relative sales volumes of a company's products are not necessarily proportional to profits
(D) identify any alternative methods by which to convince Bando to change its manufacturing process
(E) consider that a boycott may take too long to achieve its purpose.


sakshamgmat, Next time, please edit the stimulus properly and the source is NOT Official Guide..

Step 1: Identify the question

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

The word “flawed” indicates that this is either a Flaw or a Weaken question. “If true” does NOT appear, so this is a Flaw question. I'll write down “Fl” on my scrap paper

Step 2: Deconstruct the argument

Environ-ist: manuf → atmo pollutn
boyc bulbs (↑ sales) → so company ∆ manuf
Bando sells ↑ bulbs → boyc → ↑ damage to prof

Step 3: State the goal

The environmentalist doesn't like that Bando pollutes. Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, so the environmentalist wants to boycott those bulbs to do the most damage to Bando'sprofits (according to this environmentalist, anyway), and then the hope is that this will all cause the company to change its manufacturing process.

I need to find an answer that will articulate a flaw in that reasoning. I've already thought of one. The environmentalist is assuming that just because Bando sells more light bulbs than anything else, the company is also earning the most profits from those products. But there's no evidence to support that. Also, consumers might not actually agree to boycott Bando.

Step 4: Work from wrong to right

(A) If anything, it could be argued that the environmentalist is already assuming the company will not want to change—that's why the environmentalist thinks he or she has to organize a boycott to change the company's mind.
(B) In the real world, I agree that environmentalist's should explore all possible ways…but the question asks me to find a flaw in this particular plan about the boycott. This doesn't apply to that plan.
(C) CORRECT. This sounds kind of like what I said before. It's a little abstract, so I'm not sure I fully understand all of it, but it does say that sales aren't necessarily proportional to profits. I'll keep this one in.
(D) This is like choice (B). It'd be good in general for the environmentalist to do this…but this doesn't help me figure out a flaw in the boycott plan specifically.
(E) I think what really matters is whether the plan is going to work at all, not how long it takes. The argument doesn't have any requirements about how long it will take to get Bando to change its process.


Thanks for the response.I don't see any problem with question stimulus as far as editing is concerned.

I understand your reasoning here but the
environmentalist's goal is to convince the company to change its processes.

He suggests a boycott of the bulbs (highest selling product) which would cause damage to profits and hence , the company would change its processes.

What ,if suppose I am the CEO of this company and I am adamant that no matter what I wont change the processes,let boycott my company's bulbs as I feel it would set a wrong example for the future.

I think one assumption here is that damage in profits would imply change in processes.

Doesn't A option actually mean that the company may not want to change its manufacturing process even after the boycott plan ?

Waiting to hear your thoughts on this .

Thanks,
Saksham.



How can it be said that 60% higher than the it was four year ago without calculating the value of crime four year ago. Even in the premises it is also said corresponding increase by 10%. so in this case also the value before 4 years has also been taken care.
Please explain on the basis of my understanding how OA D is correct.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 39
Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2019, 18:51
Dear VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun,

I would like to have a clear understanding on Flaw in the Reasoning Question.

In my opinion, the conclusion is the goal of the plan, which is in this sentence : In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs

However, the correct answer choice C. does attack another part of the sentence : Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits

So, my question is can flaw in reasoning exist in another part of the argument other than in the conclusion?
(I always thought that the flaw in reasoning always exist only in the conclusion itself)

And please correct me if I am wrong here. The argument above seems to support the conclusion by the claim not by the evidence or fact.

Thank you as always :)
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3051
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2019, 20:39
1
varotkorn wrote:
Dear VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun,

I would like to have a clear understanding on Flaw in the Reasoning Question.

In my opinion, the conclusion is the goal of the plan, which is in this sentence : In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs

However, the correct answer choice C. does attack another part of the sentence : Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits

So, my question is can flaw in reasoning exist in another part of the argument other than in the conclusion?
(I always thought that the flaw in reasoning always exist only in the conclusion itself)

And please correct me if I am wrong here. The argument above seems to support the conclusion by the claim not by the evidence or fact.

Thank you as always :)
Hi varotkorn,

You can think of such questions as asking for a "flaw in the argument". That is, there is no need for us to restrict ourselves to finding flaws in just one part of the argument.

Have you come across advice to the contrary anywhere? I'm asking because (in another post) you had said that some source claimed that we cannot weaken an argument by attacking the premises (which is simply not true).
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 39
Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2019, 21:56
1
AjiteshArun wrote:
varotkorn wrote:
Dear VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun,

I would like to have a clear understanding on Flaw in the Reasoning Question.

In my opinion, the conclusion is the goal of the plan, which is in this sentence : In order to convince the company to change processes, we will organize a boycott of the product that represents its highest sales volume, light bulbs

However, the correct answer choice C. does attack another part of the sentence : Because Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, a boycott of light bulbs will cause the most damage to the company's profits

So, my question is can flaw in reasoning exist in another part of the argument other than in the conclusion?
(I always thought that the flaw in reasoning always exist only in the conclusion itself)

And please correct me if I am wrong here. The argument above seems to support the conclusion by the claim not by the evidence or fact.

Thank you as always :)
Hi varotkorn,

You can think of such questions as asking for a "flaw in the argument". That is, there is no need for us to restrict ourselves to finding flaws in just one part of the argument.

Have you come across advice to the contrary anywhere? I'm asking because (in another post) you had said that some source claimed that we cannot weaken an argument by attacking the premises (which is simply not true).


Dear AjiteshArun,

Maybe I misinterpret the information stated in the Powerscore CR Bible. It states that the flaw will attack the conclusion and that we cannot challenge the premise. We have to leave a premise unchallenged.

Thank you for clarifying myths for me Sir!

BTW I would appreciate it if you could please reply my other post regarding differentiating claims and facts in this link https://gmatclub.com/forum/ceo-over-the ... s#p2360029
GMAT Club Bot
Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution   [#permalink] 17 Sep 2019, 21:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution

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





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