In recent decades, the vast majority of construction

The language "calls into question" in the question stem tells us that this is a Weaken question. We're trying to undermine the argument, and the way we do that is by attacking the arguments assumption.

Now, in many cases, there's a few steps to get to the argument's assumption--we'd spot the conclusion, find the evidence used by the author to back up that conclusion, and then look for shifts in scope and changes in terminology.

But here, we don't need to do any of that! This is a classic GMAT argument structure: causality. The author is arguing that because asbestos publicity and asbestos disuse occurred around the same time, that negative publicity must be the cause for asbestos falling out of favor. Whenever the author concludes that X leads to why, the author's assumption is very simple: "There is no better or alternative explanation."

So, we want to weaken that assumption. Which answer choice provides an alternate explanation? Which answer choice suggests that there is an alternate reason for asbestos to fall out of construction companies' favor?

That's (E)--there's a cheaper alternative to asbestos available now! And since that matches our prediction perfectly, that's the answer.

Hope this helps!

Hi there .. What makes option E better than option B.

why is option d incorrect even this option gives alomost similar reasoning as option e.

D: Sales of alternative insulation materials such as fiberglass have increased in recent decades.
The building companies require cheaper material for construction, when the cost of alternative insulation materials is increasing then why would the builders use the costly products.
E: Many alternative insulation materials that were previously prohibitively expensive have dropped considerably in price in recent decades.
Builders tried insulation materials other than asbestos before but they found it costly (it can be inferred from this line "....... that were previously prohibitively expensive...."so they used asbestos , but now the costs is less then they moved from asbestos to other alternative materials.

Hope this helps !

A: On average, fewer people are having homes built using asbestos insulation than in decades past. - There must be a reason why people have stopped using asbestos. Neutral Stand - Incorrect
B: People living in homes built with asbestos insulation may continue to experience health problems after the asbestos has been removed. - Irrelevant - Incorrect
C: The use of asbestos insulation in industrial buildings has remained fairly constant, while its use in residences has sharply declined. - No proper link can be established between the media coverage and asbestos usage - Incorrect
D: Sales of alternative insulation materials such as fiberglass have increased in recent decades. - In such a case, the usage of asbestos must have increased - Incorrect
E: Many alternative insulation materials that were previously prohibitively expensive have dropped considerably in price in recent decades. - Over the years, the alternate insulation material, which were used, prices have come down significantly - Correct

Hi . if the usage of alternative materials has increased . I would expect the usage of asbestos to come down . Not increase.

Hi,

Can you please explain what's wrong with Option D. This says almost the same thing as E. how do we pick E between D& E ?

+1 E

The change in the use of construction material was caused by the relative cost of those materials.

Premise - the vast majority of construction companies have halted the use of asbestos for installation
Premise - word began to spread through various news media that long-term exposure to asbestos was causally linked to mesothelioma and other serious lung diseases
Conclusion - the home building companies must have halted the use of asbestos in response to the new publicity given to its possible negative health consequences.

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer

E is our answer
_________________

Hi, I know the question is not directed to me but (if youdo not mind) just let me put my 2 cents here

Premise - the vast majority of construction companies have halted the use of asbestos for installation
Premise - word began to spread through various news media that long-term exposure to asbestos was causally linked to mesothelioma and other serious lung diseases
Conclusion - the home building companies must have halted the use of asbestos in response to the new publicity given to its possible negative health consequences.

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer

D states that the alternative insulation cost has increased, We cannot conclude from this that the cost of asbestos decreased or its sales increased. It is a perfect "shell" type options which deviates you from the answer. GMAT generally gives these options near to the correct answer.

E is our answer
_________________

I took this as a weaken question. Most seriously calls into question = makes a logical person question/not believe.

A - This does not explain halting asbestos. Just because there are fewer on average does not mean that there is a halting.
B - This is out of scope. We're trying to weaken the argument that media caused asbestos from being used, we don't care about the asbestos being removed.
c - What we're trying to find is something that weakens the claim that the media caused the decline. This does not do this. In fact this even can suggest that there was not a halt.
d - This does not necessarily weaken the idea that media caused the decline of asbestos. More houses in general could have been built so sales of all insulation could have gone up.
e - correct - If this is true it very well can explain why asbestos is no longer being used. If they are no longer prohibited due to cost, people can use these materials causing a decrease in the use of asbestos.

Argument's conclusion- new publicity given to its possible negative health consequences(cause) -> halt in the use of asbestos(effect)
A way to weaken the above argument would be to provide an alternative CAUSE to the above EFFECT. (E) exactly does this.

IMO, Option (D)-a drop in price of previously expensive material does not necessarily imply the decreasing use of asbestos.
Moreover, as per option (A) , fewer people using asbestos suggests a decrease in use of asbestos.

Can somebody please explain..

Imo E
This gives us alternate reason why the use of asbestos reduced .
More materials started to become cheaper which were not cheaper before .
Rest of the options are no good

Hi,
How do you reject option D. D & E are in the same line of thinking. Both mention that alternative items are being sold.

Sales of anything increase only if its demand increases. D states that sales of alternative fiberglass has increased. This means demand of fiberglass has increased. Demand of fiberglass will increase only if asbestos is no more used, which is complying with the conclusion that the builders might have stopped using asbestos after the news.
option D gives a scenario that would happen after the "stoppage of asbestos' occurs. We need to find the reason of "stoppage of asbestos" at the first place.

option E gives the reason that "stoppage of asbestos" has occurred because of price drop in an alternative material and not because of the news publicity.
_________________

Hi,
I chose B since I felt that the choice B questions the causality. I am not
convinced with choice B but I gave in as I was running out of time

I have one doubt regarding choice E.

My question is that the choice E says that the price of alternative materials has decreased considerably but it does not give any info on the comparative price between asbestos and alternate material.
What if the price of alternate material is very higher than the price of asbestos even after the drop? We don't have an answer to this question. If the price is higher then choice E is not the reason for the switch. If the price is lesser then choice E is the reason for the switch. I eliminated E on this reasoning.

can anyone say what I did wrong?

Answer is 100% E.

E states that other competitive materials have dropped in price over the same time period that asbestos usage has done down. It provides an alternative explanation to the health warning (i.e new competitively priced materials are available, and therefore cut into the market share)

D states that the sales of other materials has gone up. This does not mean that asbestos sales went down. It's tempting to select, but it comes with the assumption that an increase in sales of X means a decrease in sales of Y.

Option E does mention that the price of alternate materials have dropped, but it does not compare the price to aesbestos ?
Suppose the price of other materials before was 10,000 for a sheet and it dropped to 6000 a sheet , while the price for aesbestos has always hovered around 3000-4000 per sheet? So even though the price has decreased, it's still more than aesbestos?