Brothers Inc, a construction company, spends significant...

[rhitian]

Brothers Inc, a construction company, spends significant time and money to dismantle older houses piece by piece in order to reuse the wood. Although the company does earn a net profit despite these expenditures, the company could earn even more by adopting a new policy. Brothers’ new land contains hundreds of trees that are already slated to be razed; the company should use those trees for wood instead of the old houses
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports Brothers’ policy to reuse wood?
It is a waste of resources for a company that needs wood to chop down hundreds of trees but not use the wood.
There is virtually no difference in quality between wood reclaimed from older houses and wood processed from newly-chopped trees.
Sawmills can reshape previously used wood much more quickly and cost-effectively than it can shape whole trees.
It would cost the company less to use the trees it already owns than to pay to dismantle homes for previously used wood.
The number of older houses available for dismantling is growing steadily.



I was down to choice C and E. I did not pick choice C because I thought the passage already accounts for the cost when it says .."Although the company does earn a net profit despite these expenditures" ... i read this to mean that all costs associated with getting the wood ready for use have been taken into consideration.

Furthermore, the number of old houses is growing vs a limited number of trees on their lot ... ( although in hind sight it says hundred.. which could mean any number)... could you please provide a reasoning for me to eliminate a choice similar to E next time..

[george.kourdin]

Brothers Inc, a construction company, spends significant time and money to dismantle older houses piece by piece in order to reuse the wood. Although the company does earn a net profit despite these expenditures, the company could earn even more by adopting a new policy. Brothers’ new land contains hundreds of trees that are already slated to be razed; the company should use those trees for wood instead of the old houses
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports Brothers’ policy to reuse wood?
It is a waste of resources for a company that needs wood to chop down hundreds of trees but not use the wood.
There is virtually no difference in quality between wood reclaimed from older houses and wood processed from newly-chopped trees.
Sawmills can reshape previously used wood much more quickly and cost-effectively than it can shape whole trees.
It would cost the company less to use the trees it already owns than to pay to dismantle homes for previously used wood.
The number of older houses available for dismantling is growing steadily.



I was down to choice C and E. I did not pick choice C because I thought the passage already accounts for the cost when it says .."Although the company does earn a net profit despite these expenditures" ... i read this to mean that all costs associated with getting the wood ready for use have been taken into consideration.

i'd be careful using this kind of reasoning and this is something i also tend to do. be careful not to extrapolate too much + we were never told about the costs associated with using the new trees. the question is asking us what is it about the current policy of reusing older homes is better.

Furthermore, the number of old houses is growing vs a limited number of trees on their lot ... ( although in hind sight it says hundred.. which could mean any number)... could you please provide a reasoning for me to eliminate a choice similar to E next time..

fine so in the future we may have a greater supply of houses, but the question deals with the present/past. why is the company using older homes now? in fact, they have been using older homes instead of new trees for some time so there is something about that policy that is better than cutting down new trees. this answer choice is inferior to (c) - its not relevant today and does not directly address both trees and new homes.

high-lvl take away: the way this passage is phrased foreshadows a comparison of sorts. once we read the question stem it may be useful to take 5 seconds to regroup, paraphse the question and brainstorm some possible answers in our head. why would they use older homes versus trees? then go to the answer choices.

[jnelson0612]

Reasonable explanation George. I especially like your second paragraph.

[rhitian]

thanks george. i read this last week and it did instantly make sense.... just forgot to thank you.

[jnelson0612]

:-)

[hariharasudhan.at]

Im still not able to correlate between the answer and the conclusion. Can anyone please explain , how choice C - "saw mills" ,"Whole tree" are connected to trees and house demolition.

[george.kourdin]

Im still not able to correlate between the answer and the conclusion. Can anyone please explain , how choice C - "saw mills" ,"Whole tree" are connected to trees and house demolition.

k what do you think is the premise(s) of the argument and the conclusion? finally what is the question asking?

can you write it each of these out in your own words.

[jnelson0612]

George, thanks. Yes, take a shot at George's suggestions and then we'll discuss.

[Alok chandraS808]

The company could earn more by adopting a new policy - this is the premise and the premises are to be taken for truth.
Isn't the answer choice C is proving the premise wrong?