Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat

Question

Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat into electricity. The process of manufacturing steel produces huge amounts of heat that currently go to waste. So if steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators, they would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the engineer’s argument depends?

(A) There is no other means of utilizing the heat produced by the steel-manufacturing process that would be more cost effective than installing thermophotovoltaic generators.

(B) Using current technology, it would be possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity.

(C) The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators.

(D) At least some steel-manufacturing plants rely on electricity as their primary source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process.

(E) There are at least some steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills only if they used some method of converting wasted heat or other energy from the steel-manufacturing process into electricity.

Source: LSAT

gmatexam439 · Accepted Answer

Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat into electricity. The process of manufacturing steel produces huge amounts of heat that currently go to waste. So if steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators, they would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the engineer’s argument depends?

(A) There is no other means of utilizing the heat produced by the steel-manufacturing process that would be more cost effective than installing thermophotovoltaic generators. - We are concerned only about the generators. Plus, this is an exaggerated statement, we are not worried about the presence of any other technology.

(B) Using current technology, it would be possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity. - We know this information from the passage. This is not an assumption.

(C) The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators. - Correct. If the plants are unable cover the costs of installation then there will be no use of installing the generators.

(D) At least some steel-manufacturing plants rely on electricity as their primary source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process. - Okay. This is a fact set. Plus, we are not worried about the source of energy of the plants. We are concerned about the conversion of heat to electricity via generator.

(E) There are at least some steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills only if they used some method of converting wasted heat or other energy from the steel-manufacturing process into electricity. - Okay, this is also a fact set. We are concerned about those plants only which can reduce their electricity bill

ushasi · Answer

For me the answer is C

A ->There is no other means that wud b more cost effective than installing TPG ( but the argument is concerned on the effective savings by installing TPG) -eliminate
B ->Whether it is possible to generate Electricity through TPG using present tech -Out of scope -eliminate
D ->Whether SM Plants rely on electricity as primary(not relevant wrt the argument) energy source - eliminate
E ->There are at least some steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills only if ( no where mentioned that there is no other effective way) -eliminate

So answer is C

mukulvaidya · Answer

Option c takes into the consideration of added assumption not supported by the original argument. Savings that is discussed in the argument is by reducing outside electricity, not by comparing it with that of machine installation and operation.

Option D however looks like an assumption to me.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Option D however looks like an assumption to me.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

ezzo · Answer

By POE I went for C but I have a doubt that in terms of saving money isn't this option talking about the one time cost i.e installation cost and if yes then how can we assume they will be saving money on electric bills in future.

sanguri · Answer

My first choice was e. (E) There are at least some steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills only if they used some method of converting wasted heat or other energy from the steel-manufacturing process into electricity.

If we negate e - there are no steel manu. plants that could reduce electricity bill only by using some method to convert heat into electricity. This certainly weakens the conclusion.
Can someone throw light on this argument's flaw.

chaitanya1317 · Answer

Could any experts verify this answer? I think the answer is B.

The conclusion focuses on reducing electric bill. Therefore the core assumption of the argument must be that at least some of the heat produced can be converted to electricity to save electricity!

hwgmat2015 · Answer

How C? If I negate option C, the argument it does not break the conclusion. Manufacturing plants can still save money by installing generators irrespective whether the money saved is sufficient to purchase and install generators.

Option B is an implicit assumption and its negation implies that there is no technology to covert heat to electricity. So no saving on electric bills.

okay · Answer

Ans. C.

Was between B and C for me.  The conclusion is: by converting the heat to electricity, the mfgs would save money.

B is slightly out of scope, because the passage presents the possibility of the conversion almost as a hypothetical  " if steel mfgs could  feed the heat..." . So we are trying to determine if we could save money using this method, not determining if it is possible. B also doesn't address how money would be saved, it just says that it is possible. For all we know, its possible at a huge cost that would far outweigh any savings.

C supports the conclusion directly- the savings would cover the costs of buying/installing the equipment. If you negated C so that the savings wouldn't cover the costs of installation, you couldn't necessarily claim that the mfgs would save money by implementing it.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Hi,

Lets try negating option C first:

(C) The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators.

Negation:  " The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would  NOT  be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators. "

This clearly means that if the plants are unable cover the costs of installation then there will be no use of installing the generators, since at the end of the day money matters. This is clearly weakening the argument since the passage states -->" So if steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators, they would greatly reduce their electric bills,  thereby saving money . "

The owners won't be able to save money. Thus the negation simply breaks the argument apart.

Now lets have a look at option B

(B) Using current technology, it would be possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity.

Following are my observations:
1. This is nothing restating what is already given in the passage. We are talking about saving money in the passage by converting heat into electricity. We already know that the generator will change heat into electricity.
2. We already know from the passage that heat can be converted into electricity, thus we are concentrating only on those plants that are capable of achieving such a feat.
3. Even if the plants are NOT able to convert heat into electricity by feeding heat into the generator, then also the argument stands. 
 --> we are talking about the possibility. If heat is fed then we should be able to economically convert heat into electricity. Our main goal is "SAVING MONEY".

Option B doesn't take into account 'money' factor. Hence wrong.

Hope that helps!!

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

Thanks  gmatexam439  for the explanation!

To post additional questions not already addressed in this thread, feel free to use the  request verbal experts' reply  button.

subrataroy0210 · Answer

Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat into electricity. The process of manufacturing steel produces huge amounts of heat that currently go to waste. So if steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators, they would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money.

Conclusion: if steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators, they would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money.

Falsification Situation:
1. What if the cost of setting and maintaining Thermophotovoltaic generators is too high that it offsets the savings from the electricity bills?

Possible assumption:

The cost of setting and maintaining Thermophotovoltaic generators does not offset the savings from electric bills.
 
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the engineer’s argument depends?

(A) There are no other means of utilizing the heat produced by the steel-manufacturing process that would be more cost effective than installing thermophotovoltaic generators.
 Other means are out of scope. This option cannot be an assumption.

(B) Using current technology, it would be possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity.
 Negate: Using current technology, it would not be possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity
If this were the case, then the whole thing will attract more spending because the company must implement modifications. This has the potential to break the conclusion. Therefore, this option can be a possible assumption.
 
(C) The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators.
 
This is in line with our possible assumptions.

(D) At least some steel-manufacturing plants rely on electricity as their primary source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process.

Negate: No some steel-manufacturing plants rely on electricity as their primary source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process.
If the electricity is not the primary source of energy for the plants, then electricity does not play a significant role in the cost thereby not saving a significant amount of money for the plants. This breaks the conclusion. This can be an assumption.

(E) There are at least some steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills only if they used some method of converting wasted heat or other energy from the steel-manufacturing process into electricity. 
 Negate: There are no steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills only if they used some method of converting wasted heat or other energy from the steel-manufacturing process into electricity.
This does not break the conclusion. 
--
 Among B, C and D, what if some in option D is 1 in 100 and what if in option B the amount of heat that is converted into electricity does not produce enough saving to offset the costs incurred by the generators? Thus, option C.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Thank you  GMATNinjaTwo . Getting an appreciation from you and Sir Charles makes my day.
Regards

nightblade354 · Answer

Bumping for discussion. A very good LSAT assumption question.

Raj30 · Answer

In option C, it's mentioned that the amount saved would be 'sufficient' to cover costs...If it's just sufficient to cover cost and not more, how would the company be in profit or save money? Do I need to consider a longer timeframe for this to imply?

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

Yeah really good question, which brings up an important thing my friend  VeritasprepDavid  loves to say about Assumption questions:  assumptions are shields, not swords.

What that means is that assumptions generally do not advance the argument further (like saying "the electricity savings in the first year alone would be enough to more than pay for the equipment" or something - that would be a great Strengthen answer, but Assumption answers aren't written that way). Assumption answers are there to protect your argument from a criticism you might not have thought of. Here you may not have thought about the up-front cost of the equipment...but (C) is there to mention "hey the argument does assume that the up-front costs aren't so prohibitive that the plan would backfire." (C) is a shield protecting the argument from that criticism.

What makes it all logically work is that assumptions are necessary for the argument to stand. The farther you go toward "sword" (advancing the argument vs. a shield which protects the argument), the less necessary that statement is. A great Strengthen answer would make the up-front costs negligible and the savings massive...but that's not necessary for the argument to hold. What's necessary is for the up-front equipment costs to not be more than the savings, and (C) gives us *exactly* that much.

This is why Assumption Negation works - it basically just takes away the shield and lets you know if the argument is vulnerable on the grounds of that answer choice. If you negate (C) you get:

The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would NOT be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators.

Here you realize that with the negated (C) the plan loses money, so the argument crumbles. This shows you that (C) is a necessary assumption - without it, the argument doesn't stand.

rockhardgmat · Answer

Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat into electricity. The process of manufacturing steel produces huge amounts of heat that currently go to waste.  So if steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators, they would greatly  reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the engineer’s argument depends?

(A) There is  no other means  of utilizing the heat produced by the steel-manufacturing process that would be more cost effective than installing thermophotovoltaic generators.
 Reason for rejcting straightup-  We are not bothered by other heat producing methods

(B) Using current technology, it would be possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity.

Lets see so this took me the most amount of time to reject, Its a premise that is already stated in the passage, plus look at the conclusion specifically, it says that if we generate electricity from the thermovoltaic generators we will say money, is the conclusion captured? No

Lets look again it says that if we negate this statement Using current technology, it would  not be  possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity.

So it weakens the premise not the conclusion  (  if  ) in passage already denotes that there is a possibility that only some machines are able to to this.

(C)  The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators.

Negate this- if they are not able to cover their costs- will they be saving money? Ofc not
Weakener? For sure

(D) At least some steel-manufacturing plants rely on electricity as their  primary source  of energy in the steel-manufacturing process.
Out of scope

(E) There are at least some steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills only if they used some method of converting wasted heat or other energy from the steel-manufacturing process into electricity.
Out of scope

unraveled · Answer

Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat into electricity. The process of manufacturing steel produces huge amounts of heat that currently go to waste. So if steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators, they would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the engineer’s argument depends?

(A) There is  no other means  of utilizing the heat produced by the steel-manufacturing process that would be  more cost effective than  installing thermophotovoltaic generators. - WRONG. Its not about the comparison between two processes.

(B) Using current technology, it would be possible for steel-manufacturing plants to feed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators in such a way that those generators could convert at least some of that heat into electricity. - WRONG. That's what passage already said. Rephrase basically.

(C) The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators  would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators . - CORRECT. If it does not saving money goes out of park.

(D) At least some steel-manufacturing plants rely on electricity as their  primary source of energy  in the steel-manufacturing process. - WRONG. Irrelevant when its about preimary source of energy.

(E) There are at least some steel-manufacturing plants that could greatly reduce their electricity bills  only if  they used some method of converting wasted heat or other energy from the steel-manufacturing process into electricity. - WRONG. It's not conditional, its generic statement.

Answer C.

moshe1234 · Answer

With Required Assumptions, the rule is always to negate the answer choice and see whether the passage's conclusion falls apart.
The passage states that savings can be achieved by using a certain generator - but provided no evidence that the generator would work in the specific case of a steel-factory.

Also, the passage never claims that the amount saved will be more than the cost of purchase the generator. The passage could be refering to an instance where the generator was received for free from the government or saved from a garbage heap.
So why is anseer C correct?
 gmatexam439

moshe1234 · Answer

With Required Assumptions, the rule is always to negate the answer choice and see whether the passage's conclusion falls apart.
The passage states that savings can be achieved by using a certain generator - but provided no evidence that the generator would work in the specific case of a steel-factory.

Also, the passage never claims that the amount saved will be more than the cost of purchase the generator. The passage could be refering to an instance where the generator was received for free from the government or saved from a garbage heap.
So why is anseer C correct?
 gmatexam439

Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat

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

Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices that convert heat

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