PrepTest 156, Section 4, Question 1
Montoya: Many industrial chemical processes that currently use(76 more words not shown)
Of the following, which one,(12 more words not shown)
- AThe cost of(14 more words not shown)
- BNew methods for(9 more words not shown)
- CThe chemical industry(16 more words not shown)
- DIonic liquids can(12 more words not shown)
- EFor the sake(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Safer workers, less pollution, and better reactions all sound like good reasons to switch. But have we heard the whole story? Ionic liquids might have other drawbacks, such as a high price or problems with how they are sourced. A list of benefits doesn't settle whether the change makes sense.
Peterson picks the price objection: these liquids cost many times as much, so using them isn't practical. Now we have a specific argument to answer. Simply repeating that worker safety matters won't address Peterson's claim about the expense.
What we’re looking for
Could the higher purchase price save money somewhere else? Maybe the company would avoid pollution fines. Maybe a better environmental reputation would bring in customers. Or maybe the liquids could be used again and again. Those are possibilities to look for, not facts we have yet. For the strongest counter, I want a reason the initial price overstates what using the liquids would actually cost the company.
Working the answers
- A
Other expenses exist, but how does switching affect them? The company might pay for equipment, labor, and many other things while still finding ionic liquids prohibitively expensive. A doesn't identify any savings or other financial benefit that would offset the higher price.
- B
Removing by-products more easily could make one of Montoya's reasons for switching less compelling. If the unwanted by-products can already be dealt with, producing fewer of them might matter less. In any case, this doesn't answer Peterson's objection about the price of ionic liquids.
- C
Past willingness to adopt faster techniques doesn't establish that this particular change is practical. Perhaps those earlier techniques were inexpensive. Peterson's response could still be, 'We like faster reactions, but we can't afford this method.' We need to address that response.
- DCorrect
The company gets multiple uses out of an ionic liquid but only one use out of an organic solvent. That makes the purchase-price comparison misleading as a measure of the cost of doing the work.
For example, imagine paying $5 for something that can be used ten times instead of $1 for something used once. The first costs fifty cents per use; the second costs a dollar. These numbers illustrate the possibility, rather than describe prices supplied by the answer. Reuse doesn't guarantee a particular saving, but it gives a strong reason that the larger upfront expense might be practical after all.
- E
This resembles our public-relations guess, but it doesn't deliver enough. Companies sometimes accepting a slightly higher cost tells us little about a method costing many times as much. We would want evidence that the favorable publicity from this switch would bring in enough business to justify its price. E never connects the publicity to that financial payoff.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.