Group 19 Question 92: Park Manager The best way to deal with...

Park Manager: The best way to deal with the annual infestation of pests that is damaging our park trees is through the use of a chemical solution directly applied to the trees. The solution, which is harmless to humans and to other forms of life in the park, including the trees themselves, drives the pests away within a matter of a few days. In the past we’ve dealt with this problem by using a spray that, while effective, costs substantially more than the chemical solution.

Citizen: The spray costs more to purchase, but a dozen paid trained specialists are required to apply the chemical solution, and the spray can be applied by two or three park employees, so the use of the spray is still better economically.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the park manager to support the manager’s proposal in the face of the citizen’s objection?

A. The spray is only effective for 3 months, while the chemical solution, once applied, prevents a return of the pests for five years. Correct

spray costs more + required workers 40 to 60 for five years, while chemical solution cost less and can be applied by only 12 trained worker; so total chemical solution cost must be less

B. The damage to the trees caused by the pests has gotten worse during the past decade. Incorrect

new info

C. The pests only damage certain species of trees, almost none of which are found in other local parks. Incorrect

new info, cant explain why chemical solution is better

D. The chemical solution has the potential to protect newly planted young trees in the park that are susceptible to damage by the pests during the first two years of the trees’ life. Incorrect

it can be done by spray

E. The chemical solution can be purchased by the park at a discount with an 8-year contract. Incorrect

dont know whether discount decrease cost enough that total chemical solution cost less than spray cost

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the park manager to support the manager’s proposal in the face of the citizen’s objection?

Pre-thinking: The park manger speaks about how the chemical solution is more economical then the spray.
What we know about costs:
Cost of Spray >> Cost of chemical solution
Cost of labor for spray application < Cost of labor for chemical solution application.
The effect of both starts within days of application.

For the chemical solution to be more economical then the spray:
1. Efficiency of the chemical solution needs to be more than that of the spray.
2. Labor cost for application of chemical solution needs to be as low as labor cost of spray application. Hence, the total cost of chemical solution would be lesser than total cost of applying spray.

A. The spray is only effective for 3 months, while the chemical solution, once applied, prevents a return of the pests for five years.
Options speaks about how the chemical solution is much more effective than the spray. Hence, even of labor cost for chemical solution application is more than that of spray application, the chemical solution should be more economical. Keep Option A.

B. The damage to the trees caused by the pests has gotten worse during the past decade.
The above option does not support the park manager’s proposal or relate to the citizen’s objection in any way. Drop Option B.

C. The pests only damage certain species of trees, almost none of which are found in other local parks.
The above option does not support the park manager’s proposal or relate to the citizen’s objection in any way. Drop Option C.

D. The chemical solution has the potential to protect newly planted young trees in the park that are susceptible to damage by the pests during the first two years of the trees’ life.
The chemical solution needs to be effective on both new and old trees alike, for it be more economical. Drop Option C.

E. The chemical solution can be purchased by the park at a discount with an 8-year contract.
The chemical solution is already significantly cheaper than the spray. Hence, this option does not help much. Besides, it is not clear of there is a similar discount in price of the spray. Drop Option E.

IMO answer should be Option A.

Official Explanation:

Park Manager: The best way to deal with the annual infestation of pests that is damaging our park trees is through the use of a chemical solution directly applied to the trees. The solution, which is harmless to humans and to other forms of life in the park, including the trees themselves, drives the pests away within a matter of a few days. In the past we’ve dealt with this problem by using a spray that, while effective, costs substantially more than the chemical solution.

Citizen: The spray costs more to purchase, but a dozen paid trained specialists are required to apply the chemical solution, and the spray can be applied by two or three park employees, so the use of the spray is still better economically.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the park manager to support the manager’s proposal in the face of the citizen’s objection?

A. The spray is only effective for 3 months, while the chemical solution, once applied, prevents a return of the pests for five years.
B. The damage to the trees caused by the pests has gotten worse during the past decade.
C. The pests only damage certain species of trees, almost none of which are found in other local parks.
D. The chemical solution has the potential to protect newly planted young trees in the park that are susceptible to damage by the pests during the first two years of the trees’ life.
E. The chemical solution can be purchased by the park at a discount with an 8-year contract.

Question Type: Weaken
Boil It Down: The Park Manager wants to use a chemical solution to protect trees in the park because it’s cheaper than the spray they currently use. A citizen argues that, while the chemical solution is cheaper to buy, it will cost more because the park will have to hire 12 specialists to apply it, thus making the old spray cheaper in the long run.
Goal: Find the option that would best strengthen the park manager’s argument to switch over to the chemical solution.

Analysis:

Although the question stem seems like a strengthener, it is best to think of this question as a weakener, seeking to weaken the citizen’s argument. By weakening the citizen’s argument, the manager’s argument becomes strengthened. Therefore, we can treat this question as a weakener.

Argument structure:
(P) = Premise/Evidence/Support (C) = Conclusion

Citizen’s argument:
P1: Chemical solution requires more labor (trained specialists) compared to the spray
C: Spray is more economical despite costing more to purchase

The citizen’s objection revolves around issues related to price. Therefore, the correct answer choice must deal with economic factors. Note that the citizen’s argument only deals with the present costs of purchase and application. It glaringly fails to factor in future costs.

Given that this is a weakener, the correct answer choice will shoot down the economic objection with an economic response, namely that the chemical solution will be more economical (whether in the present or future, direct or indirect.) In other words, be on the lookout for an overlooked possibility.

A. The spray is only effective for 3 months, while the chemical solution, once applied, prevents a return of the pests for five years.
Correct. As the argument analysis points out, we are looking for an answer choice that shows how the chemical solution is more economical despite greater initial startup costs. Answer choice A shows how, despite the greater initial startup costs, the chemical solution is more economical in the long run compared to the spray.

B. The damage to the trees caused by the pests has gotten worse during the past decade.
Incorrect. Answer choice B fails to shoot down any component of the citizen’s argument. As such, it is irrelevant.

C. The pests only damage certain species of trees, almost none of which are found in other local parks.
Incorrect. The issue is the cost of treatments for this local park. What is occurring in other local parks is irrelevant.

D. The chemical solution has the potential to protect newly planted young trees in the park that are susceptible to damage by the pests during the first two years of the trees’ life.
Incorrect. Answer choice D seems to strengthen the park manager’s position. However, no information about the spray’s effects on newly planted trees is provided. Furthermore, the citizen’s objection deals with economic factors. Answer choice D does not. For these two reasons, answer choice D is irrelevant.

E. The chemical solution can be purchased by the park at a discount with an 8-year contract.
Incorrect. Although this answer choice does show how the chemical solution can be more economical, it fails to respond to the citizen’s specific objection. As such, answer choice E is irrelevant.


Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

minalgambhir Sumi1010 winterschool Rajat8

Great work! All of you cracked the code on this one, so enjoy the kudos and have a great weekend!

Hi fellow GMAT aspirants, I'm new to this website and have been regularly going through such questions to improve my critical reasoning. I've noticed that I have a fairly decent accuracy in answering these questions correctly so instead of scrolling down and matching my answer option, I've decided to post my answer in the reply section so that I can improve the way I convey my opinion. However I'm not too sure about what is required to be given in my answer along with the option. Any help or guidance is much appreciated, thank you!

Answer is A)