LR Drill Set 13, Question 11
Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe process of(27 more words not shown)
- BThe amount of(30 more words not shown)
- CMost consumers are(16 more words not shown)
- DPurchasing and transport(28 more words not shown)
- EThe process of(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Saving energy doesn't automatically mean saving money overall.
The energy comparison is straightforward. Recycled glass takes less energy to become molten glass. After that stage, the bottle-making process is the same, so the later stages don't erase the stated energy advantage.
But what does it cost to get the recycled glass to the factory? It could be expensive to purchase, collect, or transport. A lower energy bill could sit alongside a higher total bill.
For example, suppose the energy saving were $100 for a batch but getting the recycled material cost an extra $150. The company would use less energy and still spend $50 more. Those are illustrative amounts, but they show the missing comparison.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the argument relies on. I'd look for a limit on those other costs: they can't swallow up the energy savings if switching to recycled glass is supposed to lower costs overall. The argument also claims an environmental benefit, but we don't need every possible gap addressed in one answer.
Working the answers
- A
Plastic is a different alternative. Recycled plastic could be more or less energy-efficient while using recycled glass still lowered costs relative to making glass from raw materials. The argument doesn't claim recycled glass is the best of every possible bottle material.
- B
There needn't be enough recycled glass for all major bottlers to make the switch on a large scale. The claim concerns the savings bottlers can achieve by using it, not whether the existing supply can transform the entire industry at once. A limited supply could still let some bottlers benefit.
- C
Consumers might distinguish the bottles without that affecting the stated production-cost comparison. The argument doesn't predict sales or customer preferences. Whether people notice a difference doesn't establish how much energy, material, or transport costs the bottler pays.
- DCorrect
Purchasing and transportation can't be so much more expensive that they outweigh the energy savings. If they did, the conclusion about lower costs would fail even though every stated fact about energy use remained true.
Notice the limit carefully. Recycled glass does not have to be cheaper to buy and transport. Those costs could be somewhat higher, provided the energy savings still cover the difference. D protects the overall saving rather than requiring every individual cost to fall.
- E
Fewer steps aren't required. One method could take more steps but use less energy in total, or fewer steps could be very energy-intensive. We already have the energy comparison as a premise. Counting steps doesn't supply the needed comparison between all the costs that go into making the bottles.
More Necessary Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 1, Question 4Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 2Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 11, Question 7Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 10Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 14, Question 1Necessary Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.