To save money, many manufacturers of chemical products decide to emit

Question

To save money, many manufacturers of chemical products decide to emit harmful chemicals into the environment instead of disposing of them safely. Often, these emissions are the obvious cause of health problems for people who live near the source of the emissions. Eventually, many manufacturers engaging in these activities are compelled by the courts to compensate their victims for these health problems.

Which of the following is most readily inferable from the information above?

(A) Emitting harmful chemicals to reduce costs ultimately results in lower profitability levels than if the manufacturer refrains from emitting the chemicals.

(B) Manufacturers of chemical products place a higher value on saving money than on public health.

(C) These manufacturers will eventually discontinue emitting harmful chemicals into the environment.

(D) The courts consider the rights of those harmed by the emissions to be more important than the rights of chemical manufacturers.

(E) Those harmed by the emissions deserve to be compensated for the resulting health problems.

Source: Master GMAT

Chandan5793 · Accepted Answer

I agree with most parts of option (B).
But isn't the option generalising all the chemical companies? 
In the passage we are given that MANY chemical companies decide to emit pollution. Not ALL.

rohit8865 · Answer

To save money, many manufacturers of chemical products decide to emit harmful chemicals into the environment instead of disposing of them safely. Often, these emissions are the obvious cause of health problems for people who live near the source of the emissions. Eventually, many manufacturers engaging in these activities are compelled by the courts to compensate their victims for these health problems.

Which of the following is most readily inferable from the information above?

(A) Emitting harmful chemicals to reduce costs ultimately results in lower profitability levels than if the manufacturer refrains from emitting the chemicals...cannot infer about profit...incorrect

(B) Manufacturers of chemical products place a higher value on saving money than on public health...because manufacturers are not citing health as important as saving money they are releasing chemicals to environment ... Correct  
 
(C) These manufacturers will eventually discontinue emitting harmful chemicals into the environment...not sure if they do so...incorrect

(D) The courts consider the rights of those harmed by the emissions to be more important than the rights of chemical manufacturers...its fact for the court position...incorrect

(E) Those harmed by the emissions deserve to be compensated for the resulting health problems....conclusion by the court ..incorrect

IMO
Ans B

UjjawalD · Answer

B can not be the answer it is generalising.
 We can not infer about every manufacturer.
So b is nt right

PallabiKundu · Answer

SajjadAhmad

I chose A over B.
Here is my explanation : 
Since manufactures are required to compensate for the money that the court has ordered, it seems to me that the profitability of the manufacturers will be hampered due to this. Therefore if a company abstains from emitting harmful chemicals then it would be able to save money,

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

The passage’s first two sentences, considered together, suggest that the manufacturers probably knew about the risk to public health but, to save money, decided to emit the harmful chemicals anyway. In all likelihood, then, it’s more important to them that they save money than help ensure that their chemicals do not harm the neighboring public.

The correct answer is (B).

commoditempore · Answer

How option E is not inferred as if those who are harmed doesn't deserve to be compensated then why court compelled manufacturers to compensate?

guddo · Answer

To save money, many manufacturers of chemical products decide to emit harmful chemicals into the environment instead of disposing of them safely. Often, these emissions are the obvious cause of health problems for people who live near the source of the emissions. Eventually, many manufacturers engaging in these activities are compelled by the courts to compensate their victims for these health problems.
 
 Which of the following is most readily inferable from the information above?

The passage says many manufacturers choose to emit harmful chemicals instead of disposing of them safely because doing so saves money.  So the safest inference  is that, at least in these cases, they prioritize cost savings over the health of people affected by the emissions.

(A) Emitting harmful chemicals to reduce costs ultimately results in lower profitability levels than if the manufacturer refrains from emitting the chemicals.

This is not inferable. We know some manufacturers later pay compensation, but we do not know whether that compensation exceeds the money saved.

(B) Manufacturers of chemical products place a higher value on saving money than on public health.

This is correct. The manufacturers choose harmful emissions  to save money  instead of using safe disposal. That supports the inference that they value cost savings more than public health in this context.

(C) These manufacturers will eventually discontinue emitting harmful chemicals into the environment.

This is not inferable. The passage says many are later forced to compensate victims, but it does not say they stop emitting harmful chemicals.

(D) The courts consider the rights of those harmed by the emissions to be more important than the rights of chemical manufacturers.

This is too strong. The courts compel compensation, but that does not prove a general ranking of rights.

(E) Those harmed by the emissions deserve to be compensated for the resulting health problems.

This is a moral judgment. The passage says courts often require compensation, but it does not directly establish who “deserves” compensation.

Answer: (B)

vasu1104 · Answer

chemical manufacturers are emitting harmful chemical into environments instead of disposing them safely. the reason is to save money.
these emissions are the cause of health problems for people who live near source of emissions.
so eventually many manufacturers doing this sort of activities are compelled by courts to compensate the victims for health problems.

its inference que so need to find choice that must be true based on whats provided here.

A no where it mentioned about profitability. out.
B we know from passage that manufacturers are doing it to save money hence we can easily infer that they place higher value ion saving money than others health. keep.
C we dont whether they will discontinue or not. passage only talks about them facing consequences of their actions. so reject. 
D this is comparing rights of two parties mentioned in passage. but we cant say that at all that courts prefer one over the other. out.
E saying that they victims deserved to be compensated will be too harsh and extreme. out.

choice B

egmat · Answer

Hi commoditempore,

I see exactly why E feels safe: the passage says the courts  compelled  manufacturers to compensate victims, so it seems obvious the victims must have deserved it. Your logic is fine right up to that last leap.

Here's the exact slip:  E doesn't say the victims  were compensated  - it says they  "deserve to be compensated."  "Deserve" is a moral/value judgment. The passage only reports a  fact : the courts  compelled  the payments. It never tells us  why  the courts did so, or whether that outcome was morally right.

A court can order something for many reasons - legal liability, precedent, procedure - without the passage ever establishing that the victims "deserved" anything in a moral sense. So E adds a judgment the stimulus simply never makes. That's the classic "true-but-not-stated" overreach: it sounds reasonable in the real world, but the argument gives you no line that supports the word  deserve .

Compare that to  B : the manufacturers  knowingly  chose to save money over safe disposal, even though it harmed people. That value ranking (money over public health) is drawn straight from the facts given - no outside judgment needed.

Turn one word to feel it:

- If E said "Those harmed by the emissions  were compensated  for the resulting health problems" - now it's just restating a fact, and it becomes inferable.
- But with  "deserve,"  you're asked to endorse a moral claim the passage never voices - so it fails.

The habit to build: when a choice slips in a value word like  deserve ,  should ,  right , or  fair , ask whether the stimulus actually stated that judgment - or whether you supplied it yourself.

Answer: B

To save money, many manufacturers of chemical products decide to emit

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

To save money, many manufacturers of chemical products decide to emit

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