Mark: Plastic-foam cups, which contain environmentally harmful chlorof

Question

Mark: Plastic-foam cups, which contain environmentally harmful chlorofluorocarbons, should no longer be used; paper cups are preferable. Styrene, a carcinogenic by-product, is generated in foam production, and foam cups, once used, persist indefinitely in the environment.

Tina: You overlook the environmental effects of paper cups. A study done 5 years ago showed that making paper for their production burned more petroleum than was used for foam cups and used 12 times as much steam, 36 times as much electricity, and twice as much cooling water. Because paper cups weigh more, their transportation takes more energy. Paper mills produce water pollution, and when the cups decay they produce methane, a gas that contributes to harmful global warming. So they are a worse choice.

To decide the issue between Mark and Tina, it would first be most important to decide

(A) how soon each of the kinds of harm cited by Mark and Tina would be likely to be at its maximum level

(B) whether members of some societies use, on average, more disposable goods than do members of other societies

(C) whether it is necessary to seek a third alternative that has none of the negative consequences cited with respect to the two products

(D) how much of the chains of causation involved in the production, marketing, and disposal of the products should be considered in analyzing their environmental impact

(E) whether paper and foam cups, in their most popular sizes, hold the same quantities of liquid

Sneha333 · Answer

Please explain this.

Shouldn't it be C?If there is third alternative necessary then we will go for that.If not,then we will settle the argument between Mike and Tina.

sophieduongg · Answer

Note that the conclusion is: using paper cup is "a worse choice" => must find an answer base on which we can say which one is better, which one is worse

(A) how soon each of the kinds of harm cited by Mark and Tina would be likely to be at its maximum level =>  When the harms of each kind reached the maximum level does not point out which one is better to use

(B) whether members of some societies use, on average, more disposable goods than do members of other societies  => not related to conclusion

(C) whether it is necessary to seek a third alternative that has none of the negative consequences cited with respect to the two products  => Whether or not can find a third alternative, there's no base to state one kind is a better use than another

(D) how much of the chains of causation involved in the production, marketing, and disposal of the products should be considered in analyzing their environmental impact  => this raises question on the way of measuring the environmental effects of the 2 kinds of cups, which, if clarified will help determine which kind of cup will cause more harm, and thus be the worse choice ---  CORRECT

(E) whether paper and foam cups, in their most popular sizes, hold the same quantities of liquid  => not related to conclusion

XyLan · Answer

Sneha333 , You MUST understand the  contention  of the passage.
  The contention:  
 Given the harmful effects of both of them, Which cup SHOULD be used between Plastic-foam cups and Paper cups?

Boil the entire argument into simpler terms and then  ONLY  move to answer choice analysis.
The  true  GMAT-options are  supposed  to be  misleading .

Pre-Think:  
 If both the cups have their  respective  repercussions and you are the  environment-friendly  buyer, which cup SHOULD you buy?
Likely, the  least  BAD of them OR the one which has  minimal  negative effects.

To answer this:  
 Let's bring a real-life example:
 Let's say you are worried about which phone to buy: either  iPhone X  or  Samsung S10 .
 A consumer would  ideally  evaluate how the features gauge with his/her requirements and the price-point.

Would the information about the  availability  of the 3rd model,  say Vivo V10 , be helpful in reaching the decision  BETWEEN   the above two models?
 Let's say you HAVE the information about the  availability  of the 3rd model:
 How would the  mere   availability  of the 3rd model  ----assert--->  the distinction between  iPhone X  AND  Samsung S10 ? 
Let's say you do NOT have the information about the  availability  of the 3rd model:
 How would the  mere    in availability  of the 3rd model  ----assert--->  the distinction between  iPhone X  AND  Samsung S10 ?

Resolution - Between Plastic-foam cups and Paper cups, Which cup to use?

Answer choice analysis:  
 (A) how soon each of the kinds of harm cited by Mark and Tina would be likely to be at its maximum level 
 When the kinds of harm reach the maximum does  NOT  aid in finding the   resolution  .

(B) whether members of some societies use, on average, more disposable goods than do members of other societies 
 They might. Good to know! It STILL does  NOT  aid in finding the   resolution  .

(C) whether it is necessary to seek a third alternative that has none of the negative consequences cited with respect to the two products 
 3rd factor will  NOT  assist in finding the   resolution  .

(D) how much of the chains of  causation  involved in the production, marketing, and disposal of the products should be considered in analyzing their  environmental impact  
   Aha!   the  coveted  impact on the environment.   A resolution - Let's hold it!

(E) whether paper and foam cups, in their most popular sizes, hold the same quantities of liquid
 Completely irrelevant

egmat · Answer

The question specifically asks what we need to decide  "to resolve the issue between Mark and Tina"  -  not  how to avoid their debate entirely.

The Real Problem: 
Mark and Tina are measuring  completely different things :
•  Mark:  Focuses on the cup itself (CFCs, won't decompose)
•  Tina:  Looks at the  entire lifecycle  (manufacturing energy, transportation, decay)

It's like one person saying " this car is bad because it's red " and another saying " it's bad because it uses too much gas " - they're not even discussing the same aspects!

Before we can determine who's right, we first need to agree on WHAT to measure .  Should we:
• Only look at the final product? (Mark's approach)
• Consider the entire production-to-disposal chain? (Tina's approach)

Why (C) is wrong:  Finding a third alternative doesn't help us  resolve their debate  - it just  avoids  it.

Why (D) is correct:  It identifies that we need to  agree on the scope  of environmental impact before we can compare their arguments.

Answer: (D)

Mark: Plastic-foam cups, which contain environmentally harmful chlorof

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Mark: Plastic-foam cups, which contain environmentally harmful chlorof

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