Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. The answer choices consist of questions that may or may not be important to research in determining the impact of that plan on Tanco's profits. Before diving into the answer choices, let's make sure we understand the plan and the rationale behind it:
- Tanco 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 preserving animal hides with salt. So if Tanco does not change their processes, their costs will increase significantly.
- In order to avoid these increased costs, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. That way Tanco will avoid the costs of disposing of salt water.
- But what about the disposal of the waste from potassium chloride use? Well, research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product (i.e. waste product) of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer.
- Recycling the by-product to make crop fertilizer will leave only a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.
Sounds great! Instead of paying the increased costs of salt water disposal, Tanco can switch to potassium chloride and recycle most of the by-products. In that case, Tanco will only have to dispose of a relatively small quantity of waste.
But will implementing this plan affect company profits? Any answer choice that addresses a
possible impact to Tanco's profits should be eliminated.
Quote:
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?
We know that Tanco's plan will allow the company to avoid the increased costs of salt water disposal. But will this plan increase costs in other ways? What if the amount of potassium chloride needed to preserve some quantity of hides costs much more than the amount of common salt needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
Sure, Tanco will save on disposal costs, but the company will have to spend more on potassium chloride than it spent on common salt. If that cost increase is large enough, then the plan to switch to potassium chloride could actually have a negative effect on profits. Tanco would certainly want to research these amounts in determining the impact of the plan on company profits, so eliminate (A).
Quote:
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
If some or all of the equipment involved when using common salt is NOT suitable when using potassium chloride, then Tanco may have to upgrade or replace that equipment. If these equipment changes are small, they may not be very costly. But Tanco might have to invest a substantial amount of money in equipment modifications before switching to potassium chloride. Depending on the amounts, this could significantly affect Tanco's profits.
In determine the impact of the plan on company profits, Tanco would want to research equipment compatibility. Eliminate (B).
Quote:
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
Even if the potassium chloride by-products are reprocessed to yield a crop fertilizer, Tanco will have to dispose of a
relatively small quantity of waste. The quantity of waste may be small, but how expensive is it to dispose of that waste? What if the environmental regulations on this waste make its disposal significantly expensive? How would those disposal costs compare to the increased salt water disposal costs?
Depending on the exact amounts, disposal of the small quantity of potassium chloride waste might be more expensive than the disposal of salt water, even after the new regulations are implemented. Tanco would certainly want to determine whether the company will face other regulations if the plan is implemented. This question would be important to research in determining the effect of the plan on Tanco's profits. Eliminate (C).
Quote:
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
Even if using potassium chloride is the cheaper option, will it affect the characteristics of the leather? What if using potassium chloride results in leather that is significantly different than the leather produced using common salt? Such differences, if any, could affect the demand for and/or price of Tanco's products. This could certainly affect Tanco's profits. Choice (D) presents a question that is important to research, so eliminate (D).
Quote:
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?
As long as both substances have the same
effect on the hides, the
mechanisms by which they operate are not important. Perhaps the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides are significantly different than the chemical properties that make common salt an effective means for preserving animal hides.
So what? Are hides preserved using potassium chloride different than hides preserved using common salt? Knowing that the
properties are different doesn't tell us whether the hides themselves will be different. Researching this question alone would not reveal potential differences in the hides or the resulting leathers.
Simply knowing whether the chemical properties are the same or different would not tell us anything about profits. Thus, this research is not important in determining the impact of the plan on company profits.
That makes (E) our answer.
mentioned in option C (red, bold) is different from the waste mentioned in the argument (blue, bold). Former is about the waste generated as a result of re-processing while latter is the general waste from preserving the hides.
Although, despite this distinction b/w two kinds of waste, your explaination for rejecting option C remains intact, I still want to know if what I read and understood makes sense.
close
31 Dec 2020, 13:48
