The air quality board recently informed Coffee Roast, a small coffee

Question

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

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear AbdurRakib, I'm happy to respond. :-)

This is a great question! Hmm. They are taking a step that exceeds the literal requirements of the law. Why are they doing this? 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. Hmm. Tempting. We don't know how often the air quality board meets and determines regulations. If they meet every month, and pass new regulations every month, then it would make sense to be extra-cautious because the rules could change at any time. On the other hand, if it meets once every seven years, and the composition is completely different each time it meets, then there's no guarantee that the same or a similar decision would be reached then, and its far enough away that it wouldn't be a cause for concern. We simply can't be sure about this. B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered. Hmm. This would be a reason NOT to get the afterburner. This is a weakener, and the question is looking for a strengthener: a typically GMAT CR trap. C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one. Maybe, or maybe the afterburner, although more expensive initially, can be used with any size burner, and so can continue to be used as they upgrade equipment. We can't be sure. D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners. Hmm. We don't know whether there were complaints or whether the air quality board just went gungho on this issue without external prompting. E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales. Aha! Publicity about a smell: very interesting. Does the smell of coffee roasting has negative health effects? I doubt it, but there's news about the board enacting regulations, it's reasonable that it might stir a current of fear, because the general public is always eager to find new things to fear. Give people fear associated with a smell, then they will have a conniption anytime they smell this smell. It's easy to imagine a chain of events that could negatively impact the store, and hence a reason why they would want to eliminate any trace of the smell, so as not to call attention to themselves on this issue. Choice (E) is the best answer. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

chetan2u · Answer

Hi  Mo2men ,

the choice C says-
C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one.

But the size is already smaller than what makes it mandatory to have a afterburner..
If the size was more than 10, this choice would make sense....
So when there is no mandatory requirement of afterburner, the COST part does not come into play

Mo2men · Answer

Hi Mike,

Can you elaborate more why Choice C is incorrect? I did not understand to what ' small one ' refers?? I understood it as ' to replace the roaster with other roaster with small size '. Am I correct?

Thanks

Skywalker18 · Answer

Air quality board has informed Coffee Roast(CR) firm about a complaint regarding Smoke from its roaster
New air regulations requires machines roasting > 10 pounds to be be equipped with afterburners
CR's roaster roasts only 8 pounds of coffee at a time 
However , CR has decided to purchase and install an afterburner .

Strengthener

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. iSWAT - This is an appealing answer choice , but we are not sure whether and if at all the rule for 5 pound roaster will be implemented . 
B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered. Incorrect - If the flavor of coffee is altered , there is very high probability that consumers will not favor this . This is a weakener 
C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one. - Irrelevant - Since as of now the regulation is only for 10 pound and above roaster .
D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners. Out of Scope
E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales. - Correct Answer
This option makes sense as CR has a reason to fear that negative publicity might decrease sales .

Answer E

imtiaz009 · Answer

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 requires 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 -- Irrelevant
C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one -- The limit is 10 pound and the firm is already roasting < 10 not required to have afterburner. why would firm think about replacing roaster at first place?

D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners. 
Its saying about the firm on which rules are applicable -- Irrelevant

E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales.
 -- Only reason for firm to purchase and install afterburner-- Right Choice

HanoiGMATtutor · Answer

While it is clear answer choice E is acceptable, I think it is still confusing why answer choice A should be eliminated.

I think the reason answer choice A is not convincing is that it includes a possibility whose likelihood is unclear. In contrast, the fear in answer choice E is real.

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

Premise: The coffee roasting company is ready to replace the burner even if they are producing less than 8 pounds coffee. 
We need to support the companies decision.

Of the given options, only option E and C come close.
 
If there is negative publicity of the coffee, the people might no buy it. 
Hence the company is ready to replace the burner and end the complaint even if it does not need to to avoid bad reputation.

Regarding option C, the company is not trying to contain the cost here moreover, there are already roasting less than 10 pounds hence no need to replace the burner.
Hence we do not need to worry about it.

Correct option: E

jayantheinstein · Answer

HanoiGMATtutor  
The answers A just says untill settling on the new air quality regulations,the board had  debated   whether  to require after burners.....at a time.

Kindly note the usage "debated whether" :a debate need not always result in implementing policies.Debate refers to discussing merits and demerits!!so there is no conclusive action that the company will install the afterburner !!

harvardgirl1 · Answer

E is the best answer. C is not because the current size is already below the expected size.

ChristineZhu · Answer

I'm struggling between A and E. Maybe E is stronger than A because E represents a direct current impact, i.e. negative publicity to lost in sales, while A only represents a possibility in the future 'at a time'. For A, even if the board imposed a stricter rule on smaller volume roaster, how the impact affects the company is subject to further discussion. Therefore, the cause and effect of A is too far as compared to that of E.

JAIN09 · Answer

here OPTION A:tells the board DEBATED .so no conclusive evidence that the 5 pound restriction will be implemented.so no need to spend on after-burn
option E:its about reputation as the negative publicity can cost the company.a strong reason to install an afterburn

KB04 · Answer

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 requires 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.

This is a strengthen the argument question. 
Like weaken, strengthen questions also require us to isolate the conclusion. As we will be looking for the answer that makes our belief stronger on the premise-conclusion relationship such as analogies, survey, reports, statistical data etc. 
Protect the missing information 
a) by keeping any option that fills the gap 
b) by eliminating the answer that attacks the missing information

conclusion: Despite the fact that the roasts only 8 pounds of coffee at a timethe company has decided to purchase and install an afterburner. Why would it do that?

E talks about negative publicity, which can be a reason for some customer to not to come to the coffee shop, consequently the coffee shop loosing it's sales.

vasuca10 · Answer

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. -  Shell Game Answer...This may or may not be implemented 
B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered.  Weakener, Reverse Answer Choice 
C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one.  Costing does not matters here as already the size is less than 10 pounds so is not relevant here 
D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners.  Out of Scope 
E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales.  CORRECT, As Although Company roasts only 8 pounds of coffee , still it has decided to install afterburner because the Company fears that negative publicity shall lead to decrease in sales

gmatman1031 · Answer

I thought (D) was an attractive option because I figured that if the firm maintained strict rules regarding their afterburners then they would receive fewer complaints. However, it's not clear that this premise can be applied to an individual company and it's not clear what the strict rules regarding afterburners are. For example, the Coffee Roast may already be abiding by "strict rules for afterburners".

If (D) had instead been "Fewer complaints are reported in firms that use afterburners on all machines", then it would more strongly support the firm's conclusion. However, even with this modification (E) would still be a better choice, because (D) can already be assumed and thus, (E) adds more support to the argument than (D).

The correct answer is (E)

rai000 · Answer

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 requires 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.  
This choice does not state if the board has passed a new regulation, only that they've debated it. A debate would not influence Coffee Roast's decision, therefore this is out of scope.

(B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered.  
Coffee Roast is not installing an afterburner because of flavor; they are doing so because of a notice from the air quality board. Out of scope.

(C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one.  
Coffee Roast is not installing an afterburner because of costs; they are doing so because of a notice from the air quality board. Out of scope.

(D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners.  
This is a good trick answer, but be careful: while Coffee Roast is trying to avoid a complaint, this answer is about complaints in general.

(E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales. 
There we go. This is the missing link. Why would the company purchase an afterburner if they're (technically) within the regulations? It's because they could lose business due to these complaints.

monk123 · Answer

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?

Conclusion: the company has decided to purchase and install an afterburner.
Reasoning: We need a statement which shows the installation of afterburner is a good 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.-  OUT OF SCOPE (the decision has already been made)

(B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its  flavor subtly altered . -  OUT OF SCOPE

(C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner  is less than the cost  of replacing its roaster with a smaller one. -  NO SUCH COMPARISON

(D)  Fewer  complaints are reported in areas that maintain  strict rules  regarding afterburners.-  EXTREME LANGUAGE + OUT OF SCOPE

(E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales. -   CORRECT; sales will impact that's why it was a good decision to install an afterburner

kajaldaryani46 · Answer

I didn’t really understand what option D means.

Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners. Okay? So, in areas that have strict rules, there are fewer complaints.

It’s possible that Coffee Roast was in this area with the strict rules and it’s also possible that it’s not in this area with strict rules. We are not given any info about it.

Even if CR was in the strict rules area, a complaint was made against it - so, it could be that the complaint was the reason for purchasing an afterburner. However, it’s equally possible that complaint was not the reason as CR could’ve been in an area without the strict rules.

Is my interpretation above correct?

Posted from my mobile device

sagarsangani123 · Answer

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.

Despite not violating the air quality regulations, why does Coffee Roast decide to purchase and install an afterburner? 
In other words, why would a business invest into something that it does not have a need to? Obviously it wouldn't. Thus Coffee Roast is seeing something that seems to be beneficial for the business.

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 - Air quality boards finalized on the regulation that require machine roasting 10 pounds of coffee to be equipped with expensive smoke-dissipating afterburners. What happened before this finalization doesn't impact the firm's decision.

(B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered - That would in fact provide one less reason to install afterburner.

(C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one. - Coffee Roast never decided to replace its roaster in the first place. And even if the cost of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing roaster with a smaller one, that doesn't make the afterburner cheap. What if the cost of replacing the roaster with a smaller one itself is very high.

(D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners. - This is the situation that could occur only after an afterburner is installed. Though a complaint was registered in the name of Coffee Roast in regards to the smoke from the roasters, that doesn't give a motivation to Coffee Roast to install an afterburner, since the need to install an afterburner is for machine roasting more than 10 pounds of coffee, while Coffee Roast's machine roasts less than 10 pounds of coffee. Additionally, why would it install an afterburner, instead of repairing the roaster which is causing the complaints to be raised in the first place.

(E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales. - This gives a motivation to the company to do something about the smoke causing roasters. The company could:
1) Replace the smoke causing roasters with new ones which do cause smoke
2) Install expensive afterburner which dissipates smoke 
We are given that the company decides to install an afterburner. (E) seems to be the best reason to install expensive afterburner which solves the complaints due to smoke and not loose sales as well.

CEdward · Answer

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.

P: Air quality regulations require machines roasting more than 10lbs of coffee to be equipped with afterburners
P: Coffee Roast only roasts 8 pounds of coffee at a time
C: Nevertheless, they decided to get an afterburner

It would seem odd that the firm got an afterburner if there is not a CURRENT need for it…but the possibility that they WILL need to use it in the future (for whatever reason) is still in play and would justify the purchase

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.

-“had debated” is in the past perfect tense…in other words their debates are over…what they talked about before is inconsequential since they already made the decision to go with 10+ lbs
-is the window open for them to change the regulations in the future? Sure…but that’s purely speculation and we don’t know anything beyond what we’re told here
OUT

(B) Coffee roasted in a machine equipped with an afterburner has its flavor subtly altered.
-taste is irrelevant

(C) The cost to the firm of an afterburner is less than the cost of replacing its roaster with a smaller one.
-cost is irrelevant…does a lower cost necessarily justify a purchase? No. On the other hand, could it? Possibly if it will save costs for the firm
-unclear what direction this goes in or what affect it’s supposed to have

(D) Fewer complaints are reported in areas that maintain strict rules regarding afterburners.
-this choice is related to the argument, but fails to justify the firm’s decision

(E) The firm has reason to fear that negative publicity regarding the complaints could result in lost sales.
Correct. This makes logical sense…the firm doesn’t roast more than 8lbs of coffee, but the complaints that are associated with no afterburners could harm sales/profitability…a perfectly valid reason for why the manager made the decision

The air quality board recently informed Coffee Roast, a small coffee

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The air quality board recently informed Coffee Roast, a small coffee

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards