PrepTest 107, Section 4, Question 13
Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount(113 more words not shown)
The point about which the(8 more words not shown)
- Awhether the new(14 more words not shown)
- Bwhether the new(11 more words not shown)
- Cwhether the new(8 more words not shown)
- Dwhether closed copper-smelting(7 more words not shown)
- Ewhether cooling and(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Cleaner emissions sound like a benefit. Whether this is a good business decision also depends on what the change costs and what the company gets in return.
The manager identifies two costs. First, the company would have to buy and install new furnaces. Second, the manager says the process would cost more to run because the copper must cool and then be reheated. Those are separate expenses: getting the equipment in place and operating it afterward.
The supervisor accepts the overall conclusion but points out that the latest closed furnaces use fuel very efficiently. That observation bears on the second expense. Reheating may sound costly, but efficient furnaces could change the operating-cost comparison. They don't erase the price of buying and installing the equipment.
What we’re looking for
So the disagreement should concern whether the new process costs more to run. The speakers can disagree on that point while agreeing that the switch would cost a lot overall without bringing the company a profit. Accepting someone's conclusion doesn't mean accepting every reason they gave for it.
Working the answers
- A
The supervisor doesn't dispute the reduction in sulfur dioxide. Fuel efficiency concerns how much fuel the process uses, not directly how much sulfur dioxide it releases. We have no opposing positions on that emissions comparison.
- BCorrect
The manager says the new process costs more to run; the supervisor invokes efficient furnaces to challenge that operating-cost claim. This is the point where their positions split, even though the supervisor expressly accepts the overall conclusion.
- C
The supervisor agrees with the manager's overall conclusion. We shouldn't turn disagreement over one cost into a disagreement about adopting the process. The passage presents their dispute as narrower than that.
- D
The supervisor calls the new closed furnaces extremely fuel-efficient. But the manager never denies that they are more fuel-efficient than open ones. A more efficient furnace could still cost more to operate if it had to do additional reheating. So the manager's cost claim doesn't establish the opposing efficiency comparison that D needs.
- E
The supervisor can accept that reheating cooled copper requires extra energy while still disputing the overall operating cost of the new process. A saving from more efficient furnaces could offset an additional reheating expense. E isolates that one step; B captures the total running-cost comparison the supervisor challenges.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.