As a practical matter, the copper available for industrial

Question

As a practical matter, the copper available for industrial use should not be thought of as limited by the quantity of copper deposits, known or unknown. The transmutation of one chemical element into another is a modern reality, through the methods of nuclear physics. Therefore, the quantity of a natural resource such as copper cannot be calculated even in principle, because copper can be made from other metals.

Which of the following, if true, is the strongest argument against the argument above?

A) Although it is possible that additional deposits of copper will be found, geological considerations strongly indicate that they will not amount to more than fifty-year supply. 
B) The production of copper from other metals in industrial quantities would be prohibitively expensive in energy and materials. 
C) Synthetic materials have been discovered that can serve as practical substitutes for copper in most of its uses. 
D) It will be impractical, in the foreseeable future, to mine any deposits of metal that may exist on the moon or on other planets. 
E) Methods for estimating the amount of copper available in currently known deposits have become very sophisticated and have proved some accurate

amma4u · Answer

The transmutation of one chemical element into another is a modern reality, through the methods of nuclear physics. - So,B argues that, no it is expensive to mine using other materials, so therefore we should calculate Cu as its available.

Answer: B) The production of copper from other metals in industrial quantities would be prohibitively expensive in energy and materials.

Answer: B) The production of copper from other metals in industrial quantities would be prohibitively expensive in energy and materials.

sandeep1756 · Answer

Can anyone explain what is wrong with E.
The conclusion says: "Therefore, the quantity of a natural resource such as  copper cannot be calculated  even in principle,..."
E directly weakens it by saying that the methods to calculate copper have become very accurate and  so it can be calculated .

Carcass · Answer

Look at the conclusion

Copper can be made from other materials.

Now you need to find a reasoning that helps you to say: that's not true. The only way to weaken the argument is choice B. To make copper from other material is an expensive process.

E is wrong because talks about the estimation of the amount of copper and how it is become sophisticated. But E does not help to weaken out conclusion. E is far apart from out primary scope

Hope this helps

regards

mvictor · Answer

I do not agree with the above comment. 
the conclusion is : Quantity of cooper cannot be estimated.

B doesn't say that it cannot be made
if something is expensive, that does not mean it cannot be still made, while E clearly says that the Q can be estimated.

douglasvg · Answer

I also didn't understand why the OA ia letter B.

The issue is not about HOW MUCH it will cost to produce copper from other sources, it is about HOW MANY copper is available. It can be costly, but if it is possible to produce, then it would count as copper available to be used. Therefore, it is strange that the answer is B.

mvictor · Answer

agree with you. bumped into this one again...definitely not a good question for practice.
apollo mission was prohibitively expensive, yet human flew to the moon because "who gets first" was more important than the $$...
so B definitely is not a good answer.

bethebest · Answer

I feel that the conclusion is - Therefore, the quantity of a natural resource such as copper cannot be calculated even in principle
Premise would be - 1) because copper can be made from other metals, and
 2) The transmutation of one chemical element into another is a modern reality, through the methods of nuclear physics.

Therefore, E) Methods for estimating the amount of copper available in currently known deposits have become very sophisticated and have proved some accurate - which weakens the conclusion that copper cannot be counted.

My answer is E)

Not sure how to arrive at the correct solution. Please suggest.

chetan2u · Answer

Hi,
 the conclusion is :- 
Therefore, the quantity of a natural resource such as copper cannot be calculated even in principle, because copper can be made from other metals.

and the argument is:- 
we do not require to know the copper deposits as copper can be made from other metal and therefore the deposits are not the only source..

lets see what E does 
 E) Methods for estimating the amount of copper available in currently known deposits have become very sophisticated and have proved some accurate .. 
 the argument never Qs the methods of estimating the deposits. The argument maintains that we donot require to CALCULATE it in first place as copper can be produced from other metals so the actual calculation for copper includes these OTHER metals too..
In a way, Choice is out of context

lets see the CORRECT choice 
 B) The production of copper from other metals in industrial quantities would be prohibitively expensive in energy and materials. 
 this choice tells us that although copper can be made from other metals, this process is PROHIBITIVELY expensive.
This means we will have to look upon the DEPOSITS only. So there is a requirement to keep a track of these..

rushapkhazanchi · Answer

What I don't understand is why isn't anyone talking about option D. It states that it would be impractical to mine any more metal than is present on the face of the earth (figuratively speaking) i.e. there is a cap on how much metal we can mine (Q says only metals can be converted into copper). 
Implicit to this statement is that the maximum total amount of copper present for mankind to use is equal to total copper deposits (+ that in use) + total metal (save copper) deposits (+that in use) on Earth.

Mind u, the stimulus' last line has an implicit understanding that calculating the total amount of copper isn't the challenge its calculating the total amount of metal that is. Option D makes it more likely to calculate the total amount of metal by putting a cap on it.

Option B and E don't seem right since B talks about cost of converitng metal to copper. The option should have been taking about the possibility of such conversion and not the feasibility for starters. E, on the other hand is completely irrelevant since it talks about technlogy for calculating amoutn of copper and not total amount of all the metals present.

Balajikarthick1990 · Answer

Hi

If you could look closely in choice B, you have the word "Impractical" - This doesnot mean that metals are not available. all this means is that you don`t have to go for "mining". There could be some sophisticated mechanisms for metal extraction.

Hope you got the point.

AkshdeepS · Answer

IMO B is the correct answer though I went for E.

Conclusion says "the quantity of a natural resource  such as copper  cannot be calculated even in principle, because copper can be made from other metals.

It implies that copper is one material and there are many other materials from which it can be extracted and it may be an endless list. So, if that is the case, it would be almost impossible to calculate the actual quantity of copper as to extract copper from all other materials would be prohibitively expensive.

As for option E, word "proved some accurate" is the problem as it may imply that methods used for estimating are good but only some of them are accurate. Because of this we can estimate some copper quantity accurately but not all.

Its_me_aka_ak · Answer

why isn't D a good answer? we have established that B is a weak answer as even if it is expensive in material, it is still feasible, and ca be unlimited considering other materials.
D suggest that the metal are limited to earth itself so why not D?

MartyMurray · Answer

The point of the argument is that, since copper can be made from other materials, it's not possible to determine how much copper can be made available.

That fact could be true even if it's not currently possible to get copper or materials from which copper can be made from other planets. After all, it may not be clear how much of the other materials exist on Earth or how much of the known quantities of the other materials can be turned into copper.

Its_me_aka_ak · Answer

ok that weakens D as an answer but how is B a bit better? as we just know it will be expensive but still we dont know about the availability

Dhruv1212 · Answer

HONESTLY THE ANSWER CHOICE MAKES NO SENSE, WE HAVE TO STRETCH IT BY THINKING IF IT EXPENSIVE THAN COPPER WOULD NOT BE PRODUCED USING THE ALTERNATIVE METHOD. I THINK IT IS TOO BIG OF A STRETCH

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

This is a pretty silly argument, since we shouldn't have to think in science fiction terms for a CR. However, do pay attention to the word "prohibitively" in B. That doesn't just mean "very." It means too expensive to be done for the stated purpose. As in, people wouldn't do it. That makes B a definite weaken.

Also, keep in mind that a weaken will almost never disprove the argument. That isn't the goal. The right answer just has to make the conclusion less likely. If it turns out to be so expensive to make copper out of other elements that it would not be financially feasible as an industrial solution, then it seems much less sensible to say that there's no limit on the copper supply. B has done its job!

As a practical matter, the copper available for industrial

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

As a practical matter, the copper available for industrial

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