AbdurRakib
The air quality board recently informed Coffee Roast, a small coffee roasting firm, of a complaint regarding the smoke from its roaster. Recently enacted air quality regulations require machine roasting more than 10 pounds of coffee to be equipped with expensive smoke-dissipating afterburners. The firm, however, roasts only 8 pounds of coffee at a time. Nevertheless, the company has decided to purchase and install an afterburner.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the firm’s decision?
(A) Until setting on the new air quality regulations, the board had debated whether to require afterburners for machines roasting more than 5 pounds of coffee at a time.
(B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered.
(C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one.
(D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners.
(E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales.
OG 2017 New Question
OG 2019 CR08770
ID - CR08770
Premises:Regulations require machine roasting more than 10 pounds of coffee to be equipped with expensive smoke-dissipating afterburners.
Coffee Roast roasts only 8 pounds of coffee at a time.
Decision: The company has decided to purchase and install an afterburner.
What will support/strengthen the company's decision? My first thought is that perhaps they are expecting to expand their operations so will start roasting more than 10 pounds and hence will need the afterburner anyway soon. Though many other options could strengthen the decision.
(A) Until setting on the new air quality regulations, the board had debated whether to require afterburners for machines roasting more than 5 pounds of coffee at a time.Irrelevant. The limit has been set to 10 pounds. What the board had debated before setting the limit is irrelevant.
(B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered.This would be reason to not install the afterburner until made to do so by law. It doesn't strengthen the conclusion.
(C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one.The firm doesn't need to replace its roaster. It is already roasting only 8 pounds, not 10.
(D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners.This option doesn't tell us anything specific about the situation at hand. How number of complaints reported vary by the strictness of rules doesn't strengthen our conclusion.
(E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales.Correct. This makes sense. The firm could have wanted to fix the issue raised in the complaint to avoid negative publicity. Even if the rules don't require them to fix the pollution problem, the firm could fear financial harm in lost sales because of negative publicity. Then, the expensive afterburner may make sense.
Answer (E)