A company that manufactures heavy industrial equipment employs dozens

B is the answer.

Premise: A company that manufactures heavy industrial equipment employs dozens of people in jobs that are considered quite hazardous.
Premise: The company obey federal regulations governing workplace safety, and to comply with new regulations instituted to avoid recently discovered risks from airborne particulate matter, company engineers were required to install extremely expansive air filtering equipment.
Counter-premise: However, despite the expense of the air filtering equipment, the company's operating costs for the quarter were considerably lower than normal.

We know from the given information that a company spends money to install a piece of air-filtering equipment within its factory in order to comply with new regulations. Naturally, we expect the company's operating expenses for that particular quarter to go up. On the contrary, the operating costs were rather considerably lower than normal. So, we need an answer choice that explains why even though the company's expenses went up, operating costs were considerably lower than normal. Possibly an answer choice that stipulates that the extra expenses resulted in savings in costs that the company would have incurred when the air-filtering equipment was not in place.

Answer choice B says that prior to the installation of the air filtering equipment, the company had had to prevent damage due to particulate contamination of manufacturing equipment. This is the only choice that resolves the paradox above. Just as we expect above, answer choice B says that the company had had to prevent damage due to particulate contamination of manufacturing equipment. Surely, the prevention of such damages to manufacturing equipment would come at an additional cost. Hence, if the installation of the air-filtering equipment comes with an added advantage that means that the company doesn't have to invest money to prevent damage to particulate contamination of its equipment, then it would explain why the operating costs were lower within the quarter in which the fitering system was installed.

A) Over half the company's expenditures to maintain worker safety go to pay for protective garments;yet only a small percentage of such expenditures go to pay for nose and mouth filters.....we don't know whether it's before the installation or after the installation...Gone

(B) Prior to the installation of the air filtering equipment, the company had had to prevent damage due to particulate contamination of manufacturing equipment.......so the maintenance cost is reduced after the installation.....which resulted in the reduction of operational cost.....


(C) The company's cost of labor, which make up a large fraction of operating costs, increased during the same period...... weakens

(D) When the air filtering equipment was installed in the manufacturing facility, the company took the opportunity to upgrade the temperature control equipment......out of scope

(E) The majority of company's employees work in the area of the plant in which the air filtering equipment was installed...... weakens

OA:B

Posted from my mobile device

Stimulus states that a company's manufacturing unit produces particulate matter. So the company to comply with regulations installed a expensive air filter in that unit; however the cost for that quarter was still low.

To resolve this paradox we need to find an answer which shows that before the airfilter other attempts were made to prevent the particulate matter which were more expensive than the air filter.

IMO B

Posted from my mobile device

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.