Wine Company Representative: The corks of red wine bottles pose a thre

Question

Wine Company Representative: The corks of red wine bottles pose a threat to the environment because they are treated with chemicals that are especially toxic in landfills. However, the new cork that our company developed, which will be adopted by the entire red wine industry, represents a solution. Since the new cork is natural and not treated with chemicals, when the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The industry's transition to the new red wine corks will take years, allowing thousands of old corks to pollute landfills. 
 B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed. 
 C) The new corks take considerably longer to produce. 
 D) Production of the new cork emits more toxic fumes than were emitted in the production of the old cork. 
 E) The new corks are more expensive than the old corks.

The representative's argument is that when the proposed solution is adopted, there will no longer be any threat.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Argument:
Current corks are toxic in landfills. 
Our new corks will be adopted by the entire red wine industry. 
New cork is natural and not treated with chemicals

Conclusion: When the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks.

We need to weaken that when the industry completes its transition, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks. So we need to show that even after the industry transitions, there will be still be threat to landfills from red wine corks.

A) The industry's transition to the new red wine corks will take years, allowing thousands of old corks to pollute landfills.

It doesn't matter how long it will take. The conclusion talks about what will happen after the transition. That is all we need to focus on.

B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed.

Correct. If bottles with old corks will continue to be used even after transition, the threat will continue. 
Wine bottles can be kept for years before consumption. So after the industry transitions, if still many old bottles are consumed, we will keep getting old corks in the landfills.
In any case, you don't need to know this. You don't have to worry about how old corks will continue to be consumed. You are given that it will happen and you have to take it to be true.

C) The new corks take considerably longer to produce. 
Irrelevant

D) Production of the new cork emits more toxic fumes than were emitted in the production of the old cork. 
We are talking about threat to landfills. Threat to air is out of scope.

E) The new corks are more expensive than the old corks.
Irrelevant

Answer (B)

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Correct Answer: B

The conclusion to the argument is that "when the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks." The conclusion omits an important fact: even after manufacturers stop making the old wine corks, there will still be thousands of old bottles in circulation. Individuals who purchased red wine bottles years ago will consume them and discard the old corks in landfills, thereby continuing to pollute landfills. Consequently, we cannot conclude that "there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks."

To further see that this is the conclusion, consider the points of the argument and which points support a conclusion versus which point is a conclusion supported by other points. The points of the argument are:
(1) red wine corks pose a threat to the environment
(2) a solution has been found
(3) when the industry adopts the solution, the threat will be gone

Notice that it makes no sense to say that since (3) is true, therefore (1) must be true, as would be the case if (3) were a premise and (1) were a conclusion. Instead, it makes sense to say that since (1) and (2) are true, therefore we conclude (3). Now the task at hand is to see how even though (3) is the conclusion, it is not an extremely sound conclusion.

A. The timing of the industry's transition is irrelevant due to the qualifier in the conclusion: "when the industry completes its transition to the new cork."

B. This statement properly identifies a weakness in the conclusion.

C. The time taken to produce a cork does not impact matters of pollution.

D. At first glance, this answer has some appeal. However, the conclusion relates to pollution in a landfill--not fumes omitted into the air during production.

E. The cost to produce the new cork is not pertinent in a consideration of landfill pollution.

subhashghosh · Answer

A) The industry's transition to the new red wine corks will take years, allowing thousands of old corks to pollute landfills. -  The timing of the industry's transition is not at all relevant, the executive says "after transition".

B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed. -  Correct answer, because even after transition the original problem remains. 
C) The new corks take considerably longer to produce. -  This in no way affects the argument, time required for manufacturing is not the point.

D) Production of the new cork emits more toxic fumes than were emitted in the production of the old cork.-  This is kinda shell game choice, we're talking about land-fills, not the toxic fumes.

E) The new corks are more expensive than the old corks. -  Totally off the mark, cost is not indicative of pollution.

krishp84 · Answer

(A)  Irrelevant (time) 
(B)  Contender-->Directly affect the environment --> Alternate Cause --> So correct 
(C)  Out of scope (time) 
(D)  contender --> indirectly affect the environment --> B is better. 
(E)  Out of scope (cost)

amgelcer · Answer

Choose B

A) The industry's transition to the new red wine corks will take years, allowing thousands of old corks to pollute landfills. » Wrong: "when the industry completes its transition to the new cork" means AFTER, "will take years" is not relevant.

B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed. » Correct: the corks of the already sold wines will not be replaced.

C) The new corks take considerably longer to produce. » Wrong: not relevant.

D) Production of the new cork emits more toxic fumes than were emitted in the production of the old cork. » Wrong: more toxic fumes does not mean "pollute landfills".

E) The new corks are more expensive than the old corks. » Wrong: not relevant.

---------------
If you like my answer, please give me Kudos (I am new here and have 0 Kudos) :-D

nishtil · Answer

IMO option B is the correct answer
A- Conclusion talks about after transition to new corks, what happens during transition is irrelevant.
B- correct- if old wins continue to pollute the landfills, then conclusion is less likely to be true
C- the cost of production of cork is irrelevant to the argument
D-hmmm- cork will pollute the environment- but the argument is all about pollutions in landfills and not about air, hence irrelevant
E-same as c irrelevant

biswan02 · Answer

The answer in this CR argument should be D and not B as it's said "The corks of red wine bottles pose a threat to the environment because they are treated with chemicals that are especially toxic in landfills. " conversely if we look closer in the argument it's clearly mentioned as threat to environment and not specifically threat to environment only because of landfills. Here pollution caused by toxic chemicals discharged in landfills is the cause ,and pollution is the effect. So the greater effect is on pollution . So in this case, if we can prove something else also causes pollution is enough to weaken the assumption. In answer choice D it's clearly mentioned that the fumes produced by the manufacturing process of the new cork also contributes significantly to the pollution. Furthermore answer choice D is better as it continues the longevity of pollution as in choice B, as soon as the wine with old bottles gets over, the cause of pollution get eliminated, conversely, in case of choice D, the same will be there causing more pollution . So I think answer choice D is better than answer choice B.

I would like subject matter experts from various test prep companies such as e-GMAT, Kaplan, MGMAT, Magoosh, Veritas Prep, GMATPill, Knewton to review my answer and request for their opinion.

I would like subject matter experts from various test prep companies such as e-GMAT, Kaplan, MGMAT, Magoosh, Veritas Prep, GMATPill, Knewton to review my answer and request for their opinion.

semwal · Answer

biswan02 
  CONCLUSION- When the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks....... 
 
We have to weaken this conclusion.....

A) The industry's transition to the new red wine corks will take years, allowing thousands of old corks to pollute landfills.... but we are talking of the time when the transition is complete......IRRELEVANT  
B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed.... CAN KEEP IT....THE OLD CORKS FROM OLD BOTTLES WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONSUMED.... HENCE AFTER TRANSITION ALSO THREAT TO LANDFILLS REMAINS FOR WHATEVER LARGE OR SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME... .
C) The new corks take considerably longer to produce. DOES'NT AFFECT CONCLUSION..... 
D) Production of the new cork emits more toxic fumes than were emitted in the production of the old cork..... THE CONCLUSION IS SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THREAT TO LAND FILLS ... AIR POLLUTION ETC IS NOT RELEVANT HERE.... MORE FUMES EMITTED IN PRODUCTION PROCESS IS IRRELEVANT HERE.... 
E) The new corks are more expensive than the old corks..... COST IS IRRELEVANT....

HENCE "B"........

KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE....

bvg · Answer

Though option B seems to be a right answer, I would like to understand why option E is irrelevant. Coz if the new crocks are expensive then the wine bottle sellers wouldn't use them unless there is a regulatory enforcement on them. So E also seems to weakens the conclusion please explain.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

sayantanc2k · Answer

The conclusion is:  when the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks . It is about a link between  the industry using new cork  and  elimination of threat to landfills .

Option E does not weaken this link. Option E implies that the industries may not use the new corks at at all. This is not the point of argument. The point is: IF the industries use new corks, THEN there would be no threat.

B attacks this link -it implies that even if the industries use new corks, the threat would still not be completely eliminated.

das.sushmit · Answer

Wine Company Representative: The corks of red wine bottles pose a threat to the environment because they are treated with chemicals that are especially toxic in landfills. However, the new cork that our company developed, which will be adopted by the entire red wine industry, represents a solution. Since the new cork is natural and not treated with chemicals, when the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

A) The industry's transition to the new red wine corks will take years, allowing thousands of old corks to pollute landfills. 
B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed. 
C) The new corks take considerably longer to produce. 
D) Production of the new cork emits more toxic fumes than were emitted in the production of the old cork. 
E) The new corks are more expensive than the old corks.

Let's review the premises and the conclusion of this argument: 
Premise 1: The corks of red wine bottles pose a threat to the environment because they are treated with chemicals that are especially toxic in landfills. 
Premise 2: However, the new cork that our company developed, which will be adopted by the entire red wine industry, represents a solution.
Conclusion: Since the new cork is natural and not treated with chemicals, when the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to landfills from red wine corks.

Let's focus on the conclusion here: When the industry completes its transition to the new cork, there will no longer be any threat to the landfills from the red wine corks.

Let's read the question stem: We need to weaken the representative's claim. How would we weaken this? What even after the transition old corks are still being used? then, of course the landfills will still get polluted from the red wine corks. This is because
red corks are composed of the chemically treated ones and the news ones. Another reason could be the chemicals aren't the reason for the pollution. Maybe the corks themselves are. Now that we have prephased, let's move on to the answer options.

A) The industry's transition to the new red wine corks will take years, allowing thousands of old corks to pollute landfills - Irrelevant. The stimulus is talking about post the transition and not how long it will take.

B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed. Correct. Even after the transition the landfills will still get polluted. Weaken's the representative's claim. Let's move ahead and look for a stronger contender.

C) The new corks take considerably longer to produce. - Incorrect. The duration isn't under question here. Only the pollution of the landfills after the transition.

D) Production of the new cork emits more toxic fumes than were emitted in the production of the old cork. - Incorrect. The disposal of these corks are in question not when they are being produced. Irrelevant and out of scope of the argument.

E) The new corks are more expensive than the old corks. - Incorrect. The price of these corks are in no way related to the pollution they may or may not cause.

Hence, B. We can answer this question via POE. Do remember that the question being asked here is whether after the transition if the landfills will be polluted or not. The representative has given as strong answer saying that there will be no pollution/threat, we are questioning his assumption that the entire industry will completely shift from the old corks to the new ones.

AbhishekDhanraJ72 · Answer

please some expert explain this i have same reasoning and also question talks abou red wine only and not all wine so how can B be answer???

santosh93 · Answer

The issue is about   threat to environment   which is contributed by landfills.

I'm not convinced with Option-B. I have observed that many have supported this option stating that old problem still exists even though new corks are produced.

But if this logic is applied Option-A then old cork problem will still exist/continue as it will take years for industry in transition to new cork. All the transition years, old corks will be end up in landfills. Consequently even this option is able to  weaken the argument  .

Option-D addresses the problem by stating  threat to environment  which is contributed by toxic fumes. Though means of contribution(air/landfills) is different in Option-D but actually handling the main issue environment.

So IMO Option D must be the answer

rsrighosh · Answer

I am still not convinced with option B. (I am not convinced with any option TBH)
Option B says

B) Even after the industry's transition to new corks, a large number of wine bottles with old corks will continue to be consumed.

However, passage says

The corks of red wine bottles pose a threat to the environment because they are treated with chemicals that are especially toxic in landfills.

I assumed that cork is used on use and throw basis. So once they are disposed to the landfills, it would emit toxic chemicals in landfills.

If the wine industry transitions to the new corks, eventually old corks would be replaced by new corks. Hence this option is not holding true.

Am I thinking too much?

GMATNinja   GMATinsight   VeritasKarishma

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Wine Company Representative: The corks of red wine bottles pose a thre

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

Wine Company Representative: The corks of red wine bottles pose a thre

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