Automobile manufacturers defend their substitution of steel frames in

Question

Automobile manufacturers defend their substitution of steel frames in cars with cheaper plastic components by claiming that consumer demand is ruled by a desire for light cars with crumple zones rather than as a result of corporate profit motives. However, if this trend were true, then carbon reinforced tubing, which is lighter than steel and stronger, would be available as an option. It is not.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument against the automobile manufacturer's claim?

A)When carbon tubing was introduced in the market place, it was not yet commercially viable to produce it in large volumes.

B)Automobile companies are reluctant to invest in high volume industrial technology to produce carbon tubing until profits from the sale of small scale commercial carbon products, such as bicycle frames, have stabilized.

C)Some types of carbon tubing for sports equipment are in such high demand that there is a back log of several weeks for orders.

D)Because carbon tubing has entirely different chemical properties from plastic frame components, new construction techniques will be required for automobiles.

E)Any valid comparison among steel, plastic and carbon frames must be based on identical performance measures.

chetan2u · Accepted Answer

hi,
 the PARA basically tells that the auto mobile industry is moving to a cheaper option of PLASTIC claiming it to be a requrement of the users and not profit oriented. Why then Carbon reinforced tubing is not used as an option..

we have to weaken the industry's claim..
so we have to prove that the act of changeover is done to make PROFITs..
 
lets see the choices

A)When carbon tubing was introduced in the market place, it was not yet commercially viable to produce it in large volumes. 
 neither strengthens or weakens- does not talk of present circumstances

B)Automobile companies are reluctant to invest in high volume industrial technology to produce carbon tubing until profits from the sale of small scale commercial carbon products, such as bicycle frames, have stabilized. 
 CORRECT-- this clearly shows teh action of industry is to generate PROFITS

C)Some types of carbon tubing for sports equipment are in such high demand that there is a back log of several weeks for orders. 
 If this does something, it may strenthen the claim that the reason for not using carbon tubing is SHORTAGE and not profit oriented

D)Because carbon tubing has entirely different chemical properties from plastic frame components, new construction techniques will be required for automobiles.
 again not of much use as a weakener

E)Any valid comparison among steel, plastic and carbon frames must be based on identical performance measures.
 Out of context

ans B

Vanmotan · Answer

Thanks for sharing! Seems like a very good way to solve the problem!

StillON · Answer

Can someone please explain why B is preferred over D, which shows that the company is not reluctant to make investments in new technology (cost burden)

atrip009 · Answer

StillON

I believe option B hits the main argument directly, i.e., corporate profits. Option D leaves it on the reader to interpret that something extra, in this case additional cost on construction techniques.

Posted from my mobile device

Rickooreo · Answer

KarishmaB   ReedArnoldMPREP   GMATNinja   ExpertsGlobal5   MartyTargetTestPrep   RonTargetTestPrep

OA – B
I eliminated B because it says, reluctant to invest … until profits … have stabilized.
Its just like once funding for the purchase of carbon tubing is secured they will invest, its not that they will not invest at all.
Whereas
Option D – that since they will have to incur cost (for new construction tech) which will impact profit, so they are being profit oriented and not listening to consumer demand.

Can you please correct me

KarishmaB · Answer

We need to give an option that is against the claim. 
What is the claim? - We are driven by a desire for light cars, not by profit motives.

A)When carbon tubing was introduced in the market place, it was not yet commercially viable to produce it in large volumes.

Talks about the past - when it was introduced. We don't know what the present situation is.

B)Automobile companies are reluctant to invest in high volume industrial technology to produce carbon tubing until profits from the sale of small scale commercial carbon products, such as bicycle frames, have stabilized.

Companies don't want to invest in this tech until the tech has proved "profitable" in another industry. This means the companies are focussing on profitability. 
Hence, it is against the claim of the companies.

C)Some types of carbon tubing for sports equipment are in such high demand that there is a back log of several weeks for orders.

Whether the backlog is because of unavailability of carbon tubing, we don't know. But even if we assume that it is, then it is a valid reason why carbon tubing is not a good substitute. Irrespective of cost, it doesn't seem to be available. Then it is not against the claim since carbon tubing may not be a viable substitute.

D)Because carbon tubing has entirely different chemical properties from plastic frame components, new construction techniques will be required for automobiles.

Till some time ago, the companies had infra for steel frames. They started using plastic components. We don't know whether plastic worked on the same infra or new infra had to be created. We don't know whether carbon tubes would have worked on the same steel frame infra or new infra would have been required. 
For a meaningful distinction, we need to compare the infra required for plastic and carbon components with infra required for steel frames. Option (D) compares carbon infra with plastic infra.
Besides, it says that carbon will need new construction tech. Is it available (irrespective of cost), we don't know. Then, the issue might be of viability rather commercials.

E)Any valid comparison among steel, plastic and carbon frames must be based on identical performance measures.

Doesn't imply anything about the claim.

Answer (B)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Automobile manufacturers defend their substitution of steel frames in

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

Automobile manufacturers defend their substitution of steel frames in

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