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

 It is currently 22 Apr 2019, 05:32

### 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

# Plastic beverage containers manufactured from

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2281
Location: New York, NY
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2013, 13:48
4
4
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (02:23) correct 38% (02:30) wrong based on 499 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

Original Source: Practice Pill Platform
Manager
Status: Oh GMAT ! I give you one more shot :)
Joined: 14 Feb 2013
Posts: 75
Location: United States (MI)
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 580 Q44 V28
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2013, 08:23
6
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

What is the source of this CR. The word that tripped me off was boasted. If I use a different manufacturing process than the rest of the industry then it must be for achieving some benefit. If I don't get any benefit out of it then how and why am I supposed to boast about it. Seems like a very stupid thing to do.
It's like paying extra for an electric powered car and then boasting that I use no less fuel than a gasoline powered car.

If the word boasted is changed to a more appropriate term then option B might be correct.
_________________
Life is a highway
I wanna ride it all night long
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2013
Posts: 15
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2013, 21:30
1
Choice A,C,D can be eliminated easily as they don't mention quantity of discards.

Choice B and E do mention quantity of discarded waste but E mention manufacturing process.

So ans should be B.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

The First and Last time !!!

BKPL - Below Kudos Poverty Line .....Need your help.
Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 49
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GPA: 3
WE: Science (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2013, 23:52
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

I didn't get what the question was trying to say. What does it mean "no less plastic?" When you recycle this biodegradable plastic, you are processing just as much, if not more, plastic than a normal bottle? So what am I looking for?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1006
Location: United States
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2013, 22:01
4
animanga008 wrote:
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

I didn't get what the question was trying to say. What does it mean "no less plastic?" When you recycle this biodegradable plastic, you are processing just as much, if not more, plastic than a normal bottle? So what am I looking for?

Hi animanga008

The idea of the question is: a beverage container used degradable bonding agent + smaller bits of plastic ==> create partially degradable plastic container. Thus, the amount of plastic refuse should be less than that of non-degradable plastic beverage container that used 100% plastic bits.

The Managers at Peter's Packaging Company, however, said that no less plastic refuse per container is produced ==> they mean the amount of plastic refuse was NOT decreased even the container does not have 100% plastic bits.

B is correct by showing that, the biodegradable agent is very weak ==> to create a strong container, the company has to use more plastic bits ==> the result is the company CAN"T reduce the amount of plastic refuse.

Hope it helps.
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.
Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2013
Posts: 1
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2013, 13:48
Quote:
What is the source of this CR. The word that tripped me off was boasted. If I use a different manufacturing process than the rest of the industry then it must be for achieving some benefit. If I don't get any benefit out of it then how and why am I supposed to boast about it. Seems like a very stupid thing to do.
It's like paying extra for an electric powered car and then boasting that I use no less fuel than a gasoline powered car.

If the word boasted is changed to a more appropriate term then option B might be correct.

I agree. This seemed like a poorly worded argument. E was the only answer provided some kind of added benefit for using this process even though there wasn't less plastic refuse per container. B seems like scope creep to me. Where did weaking effects of the bonding agents come into play?

With that said, I get that E also seems redundant and confusing as what are the differences between "refuse" and "waste"?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 259
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2013, 10:08
prasun9 wrote:
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

What is the source of this CR. The word that tripped me off was boasted. If I use a different manufacturing process than the rest of the industry then it must be for achieving some benefit. If I don't get any benefit out of it then how and why am I supposed to boast about it. Seems like a very stupid thing to do.
It's like paying extra for an electric powered car and then boasting that I use no less fuel than a gasoline powered car.

If the word boasted is changed to a more appropriate term then option B might be correct.

Hi - I don't have that issue with 'boasted' - it's a word with some emotion behind it sure, but that's not de facto a problem.

All he is saying is that his product is up to scratch - as good as the rivals.

The question then asks for which bit of evidence would back him up

James
Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Posts: 155
Concentration: Sustainability, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
WE: Business Development (Internet and New Media)
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2013, 01:54
2
plumber250 wrote:
prasun9 wrote:
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

What is the source of this CR. The word that tripped me off was boasted. If I use a different manufacturing process than the rest of the industry then it must be for achieving some benefit. If I don't get any benefit out of it then how and why am I supposed to boast about it. Seems like a very stupid thing to do.
It's like paying extra for an electric powered car and then boasting that I use no less fuel than a gasoline powered car.

If the word boasted is changed to a more appropriate term then option B might be correct.

Hi - I don't have that issue with 'boasted' - it's a word with some emotion behind it sure, but that's not de facto a problem.

All he is saying is that his product is up to scratch - as good as the rivals.

The question then asks for which bit of evidence would back him up

James

With all due respect, "boasted" does convey an awkward meaning to the statement. A partially biodegradable product that contains the same (or more) amount of plastic as a non bio degradable one is nothing to boast about IMO and definitely does not make it look like its upto scratch.

I chose B anyways.
_________________
You've been walking the ocean's edge, holding up your robes to keep them dry. You must dive naked under, and deeper under, a thousand times deeper! - Rumi

http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index.php/author/cbermanmanhattanprep-com/ - This is worth its weight in gold

Economist GMAT Test - 730, Q50, V41 Aug 9th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 670, Q45, V36 Aug 11th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 680, Q47, V36 Aug 17th, 2013
GmatPrep CAT 1 - 770, Q50, V44 Aug 24th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 690, Q45, V39 Aug 30th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 710, Q48, V39 Sep 13th, 2013
GmatPrep CAT 2 - 740, Q49, V41 Oct 6th, 2013

GMAT - 770, Q50, V44, Oct 7th, 2013
My Debrief - http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-the-ashes-thou-shall-rise-770-q-50-v-44-awa-5-ir-162299.html#p1284542
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 8
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2014, 00:05
1
pqhai wrote:
animanga008 wrote:
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

I didn't get what the question was trying to say. What does it mean "no less plastic?" When you recycle this biodegradable plastic, you are processing just as much, if not more, plastic than a normal bottle? So what am I looking for?

Hi animanga008

The idea of the question is: a beverage container used degradable bonding agent + smaller bits of plastic ==> create partially degradable plastic container. Thus, the amount of plastic refuse should be less than that of non-degradable plastic beverage container that used 100% plastic bits.

The Managers at Peter's Packaging Company, however, said that no less plastic refuse per container is produced ==> they mean the amount of plastic refuse was NOT decreased even the container does not have 100% plastic bits.

B is correct by showing that, the biodegradable agent is very weak ==> to create a strong container, the company has to use more plastic bits ==> the result is the company CAN"T reduce the amount of plastic refuse.

Hope it helps.

---why do you want to say "amount of Plastic refuse" rather than "amount of plastic" ..what is actually "plastic refuse" in your perspectives?
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 347
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2014, 11:57
Anyone care to resolve the "boasted" issue?
I agree with it.... I chose E.
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 207
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2014, 23:38
animanga008 wrote:
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

I didn't get what the question was trying to say. What does it mean "no less plastic?" When you recycle this biodegradable plastic, you are processing just as much, if not more, plastic than a normal bottle? So what am I looking for?

I have the same query. Is this wording befitting an exam of GMAT's stature ? "no less plastic?"

Secondly , from a purely logical point of view and I am going out of scope of the question - why would a company boast about not the non re-usability of its goods ?
Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 549
Schools: Cambridge'16
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2014, 22:52
I think it is more Resolve the paradox or Explain the discrepancy question than typical Strengthen question
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 833
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2014, 07:30
GMATPill wrote:
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from Peter's Packaging Company use a degradable bonding agent (ie cornstarch) to bind together smaller bits of plastic in creating one partially degradable plastic container. On the other hand, plastic beverage containers from Kepsi Packaging are manufactured without binding small bits of plastic together and without using any kind of degradable bonding agent. Managers at Peter's Packaging Company boasted that no less plastic refuse per container is produced when its containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers from Kepsi are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.

(B) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.

(C) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.

(D) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.

(E) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers.

Original Source: Practice Pill Platform

The managers are boasting that no less plastic refuse is produced. It doesn't make sense at all, why to use partially bio-degradable plastic at all. Beats me !!!!

Though only option B make sense. Not a well formed question at all.
_________________
Thanks,
Kinjal

My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1533
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2017, 19:24
C is a trap, and B is 100% contrasting with E => B is the assumption.
Plastic beverage containers manufactured from   [#permalink] 16 Jul 2017, 19:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by