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

 It is currently 24 Jun 2018, 21:14

### 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

# Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Status: Don't Give Up!
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 34
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT Date: 04-25-2015
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Dec 2014, 07:19
Zatmah wrote:
sanjoo wrote:
freetheking wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 54
Page: 138
Difficulty:

Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

I think E is not correct..becase question stem is asking that..what wud "impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt"

so company shd luk chemical properties because if there wud be any difference in properties to preserve animal hides b/w potasium chloride and salt it may effect the qulity of leather?

anyone will clear my doubt?

You are thinking too much !!! Chemical properties and quality have no connection !! It is possible to create a good quality product using different material. so E is quite broad and irrelevant. Just a tip in CR just answer from what is given !! NEVER make additional assumptions and connections Hope i was able to make it clear .

-
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

I guess, many have fallen in a trap of finding Evaluate the Argument question type.
In this question, we have four correct answer choices and one wrong.
That means, one answer is not needed to evaluate the argument.

As long as, it is stated in option "E" that chemical properties are making potassium chloride an effective means..we need not to worry about the quality of leather due to different chemical properties. It is already said that byproduct can be used for better use and very small amount is waste.

If answer choice "E" had been --"Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride as effective means for preserving animal hides produce any toxic substance other than byproduct used for fertilizer" then it would have been wrong choice ( that means "E" would have been also required for Evaluating the argument.)

Am i correct?
_________________

- Sachin

-If you like my explanation then please click "Kudos"

Affiliations: Oracle certified java programmer , adobe certified developer
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 95
GMAT Date: 02-12-2015
GPA: 3.87
WE: Programming (Telecommunications)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2014, 02:59
freetheking wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 54
Page: 138
Difficulty:

Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

has to be E,we are talking about something that has no effect on conclusion.
_________________

IF IT IS TO BE , IT IS UP TO ME

Intern
Affiliations: IEEE
Joined: 30 Dec 2014
Posts: 2
Location: United States
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
GMAT Date: 05-02-2015
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jan 2015, 06:39
In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides? Cost between the two items is very important; if potassium cost is much higher than (salt + cost of disposal) it would not be good for the company. Not the answer

B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride? If the company has to invest in new equipment, then definitely that cost has to be taken into account. Not the answer

C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride? If there are even more stringent disposal constraints on potassium then that would also need to be considered. Not the answer

D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used? If the leather produced is of lesser quality the company would lose business. Not the answer

E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so? This statement relates to chemical properties of the two materials, which are not relevant to this question, because it also states that both are EFFECTIVE means of preserving the hides. This is the answer.

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 562
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2015, 04:11
1
In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT --> So, we are looking for an argument which IS NOT IMPORTANT the impact of company profits.

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides? --> is important - PROFIT = Revenue - Costs
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride? --> it is important: if we can not use existing equipment = > COSTs
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride? --> regulations were the cause switch from salt --> potassium, so they are also important to consider in case of potassium (generated costs through regualations)
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used? --> Every company has a recognition value in its products, so if there are changes in quality, look etc IT is important for the company, as it can effect its profits
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so? --> CORRECT. IT is absolutely not important. This sentence says both methods are effective - so, it is irrelevant whether chemical properties are different or not.
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Posts: 83
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2016, 22:58
shank001 wrote:
Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

Need to evaluate answer choices keeping cost in mind.
All the answer choices that directly affect cost are valid choices.

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides? - Incorrect. Talks about cost.
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride? - Incorrect. If equipment is not reusable then it will increase cost.
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride? - Incorrect. This will again affect the cost.
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used? - Incorrect. if quality is not the same then this can hamper sale and profits
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so? - Correct. Chemical properties are not relevant here. The answer choice already says that potassium chloride is an effective means of preserving animal hides. So we are not concerned with what is the chemical composition as long as it does the job.

Hi shank001,

Can you please tell me where it is stated " potassium chloride is an effective means of preserving animal hides" ?
Chemical properties might be important here as it might not preserve the hide and might not result profit.

Shri
----------------
Never give up until your GMAT score board shows 750
_________________

Cheers,
Shri
-------------------------------
GMAT is not an Exam... it is a war .. Let's Conquer !!!

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 236
Location: South Africa
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2016, 23:52
freetheking wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 54
Page: 138
Difficulty:

Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

Evaluation : Profits from replacing salt(Na) with pot. chloride (K)

A. cost issue
B. cost issue
C. will disposing off whatever remains of K > Na? Then no need to change.
D. Obviously issue. If people don't buy their stuffs anymore, huge loss.
E. We are interested in cost and product, chemical properties don't matter at all.

_________________

Kudos if I helped

Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2016
Posts: 401
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
GPA: 3.8
WE: Operations (Commercial Banking)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2016, 09:22
It is obviously E as it would bear no impact on evaluating the company profits.
Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 609
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2016, 05:25
2

The question can be simplified as -What is NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT or LEAST IMPORTANT decision for Tanco when switching from NaCl (salt) to KCl (potassium chloride) ?

Lets analyse the options

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
Important:-What if cost of salt used by taco annually is only 1\$ and Tanco annual profit is 100\$ but the annual cost of buying potassium chloride is 100000\$ ? Tanco would be either bankrupt or in heavy debt it it does not consider this option carefully.

B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
Important:-If the existing equipment can't work with potassium then then Tanco will have to buy new equipment. If taco's profit is 100\$ and new equipment cost 200000\$.Tanco would be either bankrupt or in heavy debt it it does not consider this option carefully.

C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
Important:- The whole switching is happening because of waste disposal. If potassium chloride creates waste that cannot be disposed, then again Tanco is in the same position it earlier was when using salt. Tanco will again have to switch machines, do research again to find another compatible chemical.

D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
Important:- After all Tanco is a leather manufacturer. What if potassium makes the new leather look like a fungus infested pizza or what if potassium makes the new leather melt in sunshine. would anyone buy a pair of leather shoe that melt or a leather jacket that vanishes .No.. Taco would not able to sell the leather.

E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?
NOT IMPORTANT:- This is least important. Why should Tanco worry about what kind of chemical reaction are going on between leather and potassium as long as the final product look like good leather, does not pollute, is cheap and versatile.
See this analogy :- You want to score 770/800 in GMAT. Does it matter whether you study in morning or in night as long as you can score 770.
Does it matter whether your teacher is from Moon-hater or from Berry-toss or Keep-long as long as you are guaranteed to get 770.

Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Intern
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 10
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Economics
Schools: Tuck '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2016, 10:52
A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides? if cost of potassium chloride >> cost of common salt will reduce profit
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride? if new equipment required - increases cost
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride? if adhering to regulations is costly
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used? if leather does not resemble - raises quality issues - might decrease sales hence profit
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so? chemical properties don't matter as long as the leather is preserved - right
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Location: India
Schools: IIMA (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.2
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2016, 04:43
A:if cost is more profits will decrease ,if cost is less profits will increase.
B:if same equipments can be used then no addtional cose.
C:if regulations are there on the byproducts then we wont be able to use pottassium chloride or the cost would be higher.
D:If quality is less then we may incure loss in revenue,if high quality then more revenue.
E: no reason for chemical properties to be same as long as output is same
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2024
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2016, 11:38
Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides? Cost of common salt vs potassium chloride needs to be evaluated as higher price of potassium chloride might eat into the profits of the Tanco
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
If the equipment is not suitable then Tanco will require new compatible equipment
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride? - Although the quantity of waste will decrease , what if it's more expensive to dispose
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used? - As per common sense people prefer things that as good as existing things or better . If the leather is not liked by consumers , then the sales will decline .
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so? - Correct - this is irrelevant as we are not bothered about the chemical properties .

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Manager
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 112
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2016, 09:38
I narrowed it down to C and E and went with C

my reasoning is that in E if it is not effective, wouldn't it take longer and potentially cost more if it was not as effective? Leads into all different kinds of questions. More overhead increased lag time for orders. Way too much detail needed to answer this question. I get the whole chemical properties is out of scope argument but I have been burned by similar CR questions where E would be considered important. Next time I run across one I will come back and post.

In short, I guess this is why I struggle studying CR questions even from the OG.
_________________

Gmat prep 1 600
Veritas 1 650
Veritas 2 680
Gmat prep 2 690 (48Q 37V)
Gmat prep 5 730 (47Q 42V)
Gmat prep 6 720 (48Q 41V)

Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2016
Posts: 94
Location: India
Schools: HEC Montreal '21
GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V37
GPA: 3
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2017, 10:33
freetheking wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 54
Page: 138
Difficulty:

Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

E for me...2 reasons....1st that directly answers the question----IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "PROFIT" OR "COST" OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT...2nd...it is the odd one out ....
Intern
Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 15
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2017, 04:56
I am not clear about the reasoning used to eliminate option 'C'. Expert advice needed.
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3200
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2017, 04:45
pallavi01 wrote:
I am not clear about the reasoning used to eliminate option 'C'. Expert advice needed.

If the environmental regulations in disposal of waste caused by processing the by-product of KCl are stringent then the move towards KCl from NaCl is not recommend. If the regulations are not stringent , then it is alright to shift to KCl from NaCl.

Thus evaluating option C is important in determining whether a shift would be beneficial. Thus C is not the correct option.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 460
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2017, 15:27
Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

Please pay Attention to the question and it says :EXCEPT

Since the argument has already mentioned that potassium is a effective means of preserving the hide so it can be replaced by salt. The cost of replacement and the quality of leather produced are the major factors to be considered after teh regulations for the disposal for potassium by products.
Choices A,B,C and D all consider the points that were just mentioned above. the only choice left is E which considers chemical properties of the potassium chloride,which are totally irrelevant .thus choice E is the best answer.

Now since the
Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 257
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2017, 01:56
"E" is the correct choice - The assumption that potassium chloride and salt are both effective means for preserving animal hides—so it does not raise any issue as to whether potassium chloride is adequately effective or as effective as salt.
_________________

Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 499
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2017, 12:53
A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
Cost is imp factor to know
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
If the equipment used is not compatible with KCL ir potassium cloride then using KCl is not good, so important point
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
What regulations of waste product generated from using potassium cloride Kcl are for its disposal - if too stringent to dispose then also not good to use KCl => important point.
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
If there is considerable amount of variation in leather quality that Tanco makes => ie if potassium cloride is making the leather quality inferior by any amount or making superior by any amount is important to know => important point
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

Comparing chemical properties of common salt and potassium chloride is useless- so this is the answer
_________________

Give Kudos for correct answer and/or if you like the solution.

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 499
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2017, 12:56
AnubhavK wrote:
"E" is the correct choice - The assumption that potassium chloride and salt are both effective means for preserving animal hides—so it does not raise any issue as to whether potassium chloride is adequately effective or as effective as salt.

use the word presupposes in place of assumption and it becomes - Copy paste from verbal review official solution
_________________

Give Kudos for correct answer and/or if you like the solution.

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2017
Posts: 61
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 20 Nov 2017, 09:32
1
Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

Originally posted by lichting on 20 Nov 2017, 09:07.
Last edited by lichting on 20 Nov 2017, 09:32, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt   [#permalink] 20 Nov 2017, 09:07

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 45 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by