It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 18:44

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Innovations in production technology and decreases in the

Author Message
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1509

Kudos [?]: 1071 [0], given: 1

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2007, 12:27
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at \$2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Kudos [?]: 1071 [0], given: 1

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2553

Kudos [?]: 536 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2007, 12:33
tarek99 wrote:
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at \$2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Either A or C. I vote C.

Kudos [?]: 536 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3583

Kudos [?]: 4716 [0], given: 360

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 05:10
also C

Kudos [?]: 4716 [0], given: 360

Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 628

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 06:32
tarek99 wrote:
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at \$2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

Between 'A' & 'C' ..

Will go for 'C'

Technological advances in prodution are the same for both new paper and recycled paper......

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 506

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Location: Indonesia

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 07:30
tarek99 wrote:
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at \$2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Amar

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1509

Kudos [?]: 1071 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 12:59
OA is C

Kudos [?]: 1071 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 628

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 16:46
Amardeep Sharma wrote:
tarek99 wrote:
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at \$2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Amar

Amar,

At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice).

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 181

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2007, 17:32
Can anyone offer a compelling explanation as to why C is superior to A?

Both explain why the increased cost-efficiency hasn't made a dent in the price viability.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1509

Kudos [?]: 1071 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2007, 03:49
I think the reason why C is superior to A is that A addresses only one of the 2 elements at issue: the cost of unprocessed trees. even if the cost of the tree is cheaper, the technology used could still be expensive and, therefore, not result to efficiency. don't forget, in "resolve the paradox" question, you have to address how the 2 points at issue can co-exist. option A talks about only one of the 2 elements, which is the raw material, and doesn't even talk about technology. the correct anwer choice must mention how the 2 can exist together to produce the result mentioned in the argument: produce efficiency.

In option C, it talks about technology and our desired result of efficiency. now whether or not the unprocessed trees were expensive still reaches to our desired result of efficiency. that's how i see it at least and that's why it makes sense to me. hope this helps!

Kudos [?]: 1071 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 506

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Location: Indonesia

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2007, 04:52
Beyond700 wrote:
Amardeep Sharma wrote:
tarek99 wrote:
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at \$2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Amar

Amar,

At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice).

oh ya, you are absolutely correct, you hit the nail in right place...thnx buddy

Amar

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 628

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2007, 05:07
Skewed wrote:
Can anyone offer a compelling explanation as to why C is superior to A?

Both explain why the increased cost-efficiency hasn't made a dent in the price viability.

For me, choice 'A' fails to cover cost for trees waiting to be cut. The cause here has a very short life span.

In other words only those trees that are already cut become cheaper and not the whole process of cutting the fresh trees to produce new paper.

Only long term and definite causes will have a direct impact on 'point of price viability' and not the adhoc ones.

Also the quantity of 'cut trees' is ignored, it could be so small that it may not influence the market price

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 628

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2007, 05:09
Amardeep Sharma wrote:
Beyond700 wrote:
Amardeep Sharma wrote:
tarek99 wrote:
Innovations in production technology and decreases in the cost of equipment have made recycling paper into new paper products much more cost-efficient over the last twenty years. Despite these advances, though, the "point of price viability" (the price that new paper made from trees must reach to make recycled paper comparable in price) is unchanged at \$2.12 per ream of paper.

Which of the following, if true, most explains why the increased cost-efficiency of recycled paper has not lowered the point of price viability?

a) The cost of unprocessed trees to make new paper has fallen dramatically.

b) The decreases in the cost of recycling equipment have occurred despite increases in the cost of raw materials required to manufacture such equipment.

c) Innovations in production technology have made it much more cost-efficient to produce new paper from trees.

d) Most paper is made from the scraps and sawdust left after processing new trees for lumber, rather than directly from the trees themselves.

e) When the price of planting new saplings to replace cut trees becomes more expensive, forests reserves not previously worth cutting become cost-effective to cut

though A and C are very close, I will go with A

reason- Innovation in production technology is common for both reclyled paper and new paper from trees. The only difference could be that the cost of unprocessed tree, which is the raw material for producing paper, has dramatically reduced.

Amar

Amar,

At my first go, I was going for 'A', for similar reason as yours.. Then I realised that the fact about 'Innovation in production technology for new paper' is not in the original premise but in one of the possible explanations (answer choice).

oh ya, you are absolutely correct, you hit the nail in right place...thnx buddy

Amar

We are in the same boat.

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Recycled Papers   [#permalink] 04 Dec 2007, 05:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Innovations in production technology and decreases in the

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 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®.