Q13 - Plant manager: We could greatly

[mrudula_2005]

Hi,

I have a few questions related to this problem.

How were we supposed to know that the supervisor expresses disagreement with the plant manager regarding B? He/She was not clear about anything in her brief comments - all she said was "...since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient" - but the latest closed furnaces could be extremely fuel efficient and still be cost more to run...right? Wouldn't we have to jump to an assumption that extremely fuel -efficient means "costs less"? or do we know that because she prefaces her comments with "...but [I] disagree about one point you make..."

which brings me to my other question...

So suppose it is clear the supervisor believes the opposite of what the Plan manager believes in terms of processing costs...but then how does she come to the same conclusion that "adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit" ? is that based then on pure installation costs (Rather than processing costs which she apparently thinks is less or as expensive as the current process).

if you could just walk me through the reasoning process in this conversation that'd be great.

thank you!

[aileenann]

Ok, so let me tackle your questions one at a time.

First question first :) I actually think this is a pretty fair answer choice, and let me tell you why. The supervisor gives us a few clues. First, she says that she agrees with the overall conclusion. That knocks out the conclusion from the first argument, since she agrees with it. Then she points to the fuel efficiency. If we look to the arguments the plant manager makes, we can see they are limited to:

-reducing sulfur dioxide
-using closed and not open furnaces
-moving copper in solid form
-new equipment more expensive to buy/install
-new equipment more expensive to run

It definitely takes a little bit of a leap, but I'd say there is an obvious best leap from fuel-efficiency to only once of the points above, and it has to be the one about whether it's more expensive to run. Feel free to lambast me if you think I am hoodwinking you, but I honestly feel that's the best jump and the most logical one.

You may feel a little uncomfortable making any leap at all, and that's a good instinct. When you first start studying for the LSAT, you want to be very very demanding of your answer choices. But there comes a time when you need to recognize that the LSAT actually doesn't expect leaps from time to time. That's part of the reason you want to work by process of elimination on the LR - because sometimes there won't be a perfect answer!

Ok, on to question two. I'd first note that I don't think we need to figure out how she gets to her conclusion. That's not what the question is asking us to figure out. But for the curious, yes, I'd go with your analysis that probably this stems from the very high cost of the equipment. We don't know the exact price, so without numbers we can't go further.

I hope this helps! Keep plugging away and asking the tough questions. That's what the forum is all about.

[mrudula_2005]

that definitely helped! thank you!!

[zainrizvi]

Why is (E) incorrect?

[bbirdwell]

Here's one way to think about it:

(E) is way too specific, limiting cost considerations to one specific part of each of the whole processes (old and new), whereas (B) has a more appropriate scope, regarding the relative costs of the entire process.

It's like we have an argument about a car running better than another, and (B) says something about their engines, while (E) reduces the argument to a comparison of one's water pump to the other's spark plugs (cooling and reheating vs moving).

[LSAT-Chang]

Is (D) wrong because the Supervisor doesn't even talk about open furnaces bust just the closed ones?

[bbirdwell]

Right. The supervisor makes no comparison of efficiency between open and closed. He just says that the closed ones are great.

[bigtree65]

I'm sorry but I still don't understand why E is wrong. I fully agree that B has a much broader scope and seems like a better answer but I don't think that's enough to rule out E. Our only clue as to what the supervisor disagrees with is that it has to do with fuel efficiency. Reheating the solid copper is clearly a fuel efficiency issue. As is the entire process because it's cost depends on reheating the copper. So how can we jump to the conclusion that the supervisor Believes B and not E?

[mcrittell]

I think I'm having trouble with this one because I didn't make the leap between fuel-efficiency and lowering of cost. How does one make that assumption? Granted, there isn't much else left to do given both statements, but still, I felt like you had to assume a lot. Ideas?

[maryadkins]

I'm sorry but I still don't understand why E is wrong. I fully agree that B has a much broader scope and seems like a better answer but I don't think that's enough to rule out E.

It is because the Supervisor raises the fuel-efficiency issue to attack "one point" made by the PM--whether the whole process is more expensive to run. (E) suggests that the Supervisor only takes issue with 1/2 of the PM's point. But he takes issue with the whole process. If we said he just took issue with the reheating and cooling, we have no basis to make that claim.

Granted, there isn't much else left to do given both statements, but still, I felt like you had to assume a lot.

Exactly. In this case, it's gotta have to do with cost. It makes no sense otherwise. Luckily, efficiency is generally synonymous with cost when it comes to running things on fuel. It's an assumption we make, but not a very big one in this case.

[sge4]

But there comes a time when you need to recognize that the LSAT actually doesn't expect leaps from time to time.

Just to confirm, aileenann, you meant the LSAT "does" expect leaps from time to time, right?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Aileen is busy teaching away for now, so let me "assume" to know what she meant!

It definitely takes a little bit of a leap, but I'd say there is an obvious best leap from fuel-efficiency to only once of the points above, and it has to be the one about whether it's more expensive to run. Feel free to lambast me if you think I am hoodwinking you, but I honestly feel that's the best jump and the most logical one.

Based on her statements here, I'm sure that she meant that it's okay to take a little leap here.

Hope that helps!

[jamiejames]

ugh, this question. I chose D even though I wanted to choose B. I chose D because I was afraid of making the jump between the closed one being efficient, and saying the whole process would be more expensive to run.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

ugh, this question. I chose D even though I wanted to choose B. I chose D because I was afraid of making the jump between the closed one being efficient, and saying the whole process would be more expensive to run.

Interesting point! Hey, though you don't have to. Notice the way the supervisor guides us with his language to the correct answer. The supervisor says that he agrees with the conclusion, but disagree about one point. If we look at the language cues in the plant manager's argument we see the words "so overall," and the word "because." The former being the argument's main conclusion, the latter a subsidiary conclusion based on the claim "the that copper must be reheated after it has cooled."

So we know the disputed claim! It's that "the new process costs more to run than the current process" - perfectly stated in answer choice (B). Use the language cues!

[bsky2015]

ugh, this question. I chose D even though I wanted to choose B. I chose D because I was afraid of making the jump between the closed one being efficient, and saying the whole process would be more expensive to run.

Interesting point! Hey, though you don't have to. Notice the way the supervisor guides us with his language to the correct answer. The supervisor says that he agrees with the conclusion, but disagree about one point. If we look at the language cues in the plant manager's argument we see the words "so overall," and the word "because." The former being the argument's main conclusion, the latter a subsidiary conclusion based on the claim "the that copper must be reheated after it has cooled."

So we know the disputed claim! It's that "the new process costs more to run than the current process" - perfectly stated in answer choice (B). Use the language cues!

Thank very much for your comment. It help me to think about for my ideals.

We also find them more same at:Plant manager interview questions
Tks again and pls keep posting.

[theanswer21324]

Hey Matt,

I think I was starting to get this question as I was reading the thread but your last comment actually made me a little more confused by drawing my attention to something I initially had not paid enough attention to.

If I understand what you're saying correctly, you're saying that the plant manager's core can be broken down to: "Because Copper must be reheated after it has cooled --> New process costs more to run than current process --> So overall, adopting the new process will cost much."

So basically, the Plant Manager is saying that the new process costs more to run because "copper must be reheated after it has cooled." But how does it makes sense now that they disagree about "whether the new copper smelting process is more expensive to run that the current process" as (B) suggests? The supervisor only talks about how the latest furnaces are extremely fuel efficient, but we don't know anything about what he thinks regarding the process in which copper must be reheated. It seems like this was the main piece of evidence that the plant manager used to say that the new process would cost more to run, so I don't see how you could draw a conclusion about what the supervisor thinks about the overall cost of running the process if he never mentions anything regarding this aspect and only talks about fuel efficiency.

It seems like this makes the part-to-whole problem with (B) even more apparent (in terms of concluding that because one part of the process, fuel efficiency, is less, the overall process will be less)

[ldfdsa]

The Plant manager's overall conclusion includes two points: (1) "the new equipment expensive to buy" and (2) "the new process costs more to run". Since the fact that the "latest closed furnace are extremely fuel-efficient" has nothing to do with (1), the Supervisor must disagree with (2), which is what (B) said.
Hope this will help