It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the

Question

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

Please explain

chalven · Answer

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes. --  Out of scope. We are only concerned about Hamilton.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again. --  This statement comes close to supporting the argument. If it takes several years before the equipment begins to leak, then Hamilton would be saving the money it pays towards compensation and still does not have to repair the equipment. 
(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs. --  Irrelevant. The argument is not about raising prices.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year. --  Irrelevant. This statement does nothing to support the argument.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes. --  It does not matter who files the claims. We don't know to whom is Hamilton paying the compensation. It could be paying to the government.

Any comments guys.

ritula · Answer

yes i agree with chaven. Since the company pays an annual amount of 3 millions while the repair will cost 2 millions. The company will save in all these years.Ans shld be B

tusharvk · Answer

B is what was the most appropriate. I did not understand the argument made in the stem. Is it arguing for repairs to be made or against repairs to be made?

nitya34 · Answer

B has sense
what is this E option about?
OOS-out of Scope?

bigfernhead · Answer

I went with B which seemed the most logical, and then finally chose E.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

B is irrelevant since we're directly talking about incurring losses due to damages. We're not concerned what happens years down the row (though it's logical to think so)

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

If the leak is fixed, factory workers (the people most likely to report) will stop claiming for damages. If so, the staff will stop processing these claims, thus yielding the savings.

balajinaik · Answer

For me its a clear E

Premise: 2 Million to fix the leaks
Argument: 3 million savings from claims due to chemical fumes.

The gap is 1 million extra saving that should be coming from somewhere. Statement says identify a sitution which if true will fix this gap of 1 million.

only E gives the correct explanation that admistrative staff are filling other type of compensation as chemical fumes there by amounting to 3 million.

hope it helps

peraspera · Answer

I think B is the strongest.
E could be interpreted differently, and could either support or weaken the argument.

unplugged · Answer

I'll go with B

Cheers,
Unplugged

bigfernhead · Answer

OA PLEASE.

kuldeep4gmat · Answer

IMO B

ngoctraiden1905 · Answer

Notice that in the stem"In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring..." and "pays that amount annually" clearly show that B should be the OA because only several years after the equipment is repaired had the compensation occurred.

kairoshan · Answer

looks like B only supports the conclusion. OA?

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the

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