Industry's environmental improvement efforts have traditionally focused on pollution control through identifying, processing, and disposing of dischar...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Industry's environmental improvement efforts have traditionally focused on pollution control through identifying, processing, and disposing of discharges or waste. Recently, more progressive companies have embraced the concept of pollution prevention, using such methods as material substitution and closed-loop processes to prevent pollution. Regardless of their approach to dealing with pollution, however, many companies view pollution treatment or control as too expensive. But companies must learn to view environmental improvement in terms of efficient use of resources and to recognize that pollution has "opportunity costs"—wasted resources, wasted effort, and diminished product value for customers.
This view of pollution as resulting from inefficient use of resources evokes the history of the "quality revolution" of the 1980s. Before that revolution, many managers believed that improving product quality was prohibitively expensive because it could be achieved only through additional inspections and reworking of "inevitable" product defects. What lay behind the old view was the assumption that both product design and production processes were unalterable. As a result of the quality revolution, companies now view defects as a sign of inefficient product and process design, not as an inevitable by-product of manufacturing.
Like product defects, industrial pollution often reveals flaws in product design or production processes. Companies can eliminate pollution and follow the basic principles of the quality revolution by using materials more efficiently, by obviating the need for hazardous and hard-to-handle materials, and by eliminating unneeded activities.
The term "opportunity costs" as it is used in the passage refers to which of the following?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Industry's environmental improvement efforts have traditionally focused on pollution control through identifying, processing, and disposing of discharges or waste. | What it says: Companies used to handle pollution by finding it and cleaning it up after it was created. What it does: Introduces the traditional/old approach to environmental problems. Source/Type: Author's factual statement about industry practices. Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes baseline understanding. Visualization: Traditional approach: Factory creates 100 tons of waste → Company identifies it → Processes it → Disposes of it (dealing with pollution AFTER it exists) Reading Strategy Insight: This is straightforward setup. The word "traditionally" signals we'll likely hear about newer approaches soon. |
| Recently, more progressive companies have embraced the concept of pollution prevention, using such methods as material substitution and closed-loop processes to prevent pollution. | What it says: Some forward-thinking companies now try to stop pollution before it happens, using different materials or processes that create loops. What it does: Introduces the newer/modern approach as a contrast to the traditional one. Source/Type: Author's factual statement about recent industry developments. Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with sentence 1: Instead of dealing with pollution after it's created, some companies now prevent it from being created at all. Visualization: New approach: Factory changes materials/processes → Creates only 10 tons of waste instead of 100 tons (preventing pollution BEFORE it exists) Reading Strategy Insight: Classic RC pattern: old way vs. new way. We have a clear comparison developing. |
| Regardless of their approach to dealing with pollution, however, many companies view pollution treatment or control as too expensive. | What it says: Whether companies use the old method or new method, most still think dealing with pollution costs too much money. What it does: Identifies a common problem/misconception that affects both approaches. Source/Type: Author's observation about current industry attitudes. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentences 1-2 by saying "regardless of approach" - it affects both the traditional cleanup method AND the newer prevention method. Visualization: Traditional companies: "Cleanup costs $50 million - too expensive!" Progressive companies: "Prevention costs $20 million - still too expensive!" What We Know So Far: Two approaches exist, but both are seen as costly. What We Don't Know Yet: The author's solution to this cost concern. Reading Strategy Insight: The word "however" signals a problem with both approaches. This sets up the author's main argument. |
| But companies must learn to view environmental improvement in terms of efficient use of resources and to recognize that pollution has "opportunity costs"—wasted resources, wasted effort, and diminished product value for customers. | What it says: Companies should stop thinking about pollution as just an expense and start thinking about it as waste that actually costs them money in lost resources, wasted work, and worse products. What it does: Presents the author's main argument/solution to the cost problem identified in sentence 3. Source/Type: Author's prescriptive opinion ("must learn"). Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly addresses the "too expensive" problem from sentence 3 by reframing how to think about costs. Visualization: Old thinking: "Environmental improvement costs us $20 million" New thinking: "Pollution is already costing us $30 million in wasted materials + time + customer satisfaction" Reading Strategy Insight: This is the key insight! The author is saying companies are looking at costs wrong - they're only seeing expenses, not savings. |
| This view of pollution as resulting from inefficient use of resources evokes the history of the "quality revolution" of the 1980s. | What it says: The author's idea about pollution being waste is similar to what happened with the quality revolution in the 1980s. What it does: Introduces an analogy/parallel to support the main argument. Source/Type: Author's analytical connection. Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates and reinforces sentence 4's argument by saying "this view" and connecting it to a historical precedent. Visualization: 1980s Quality Issues → Quality Revolution → Better outcomes Today's Pollution Issues → Environmental Revolution? → Better outcomes What We Don't Know Yet: Details about what the quality revolution actually was and how it parallels pollution. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here! The author is about to explain their main point using a historical example. Analogies in RC usually clarify, not complicate. |
| Before that revolution, many managers believed that improving product quality was prohibitively expensive because it could be achieved only through additional inspections and reworking of "inevitable" product defects. | What it says: Before the 1980s, managers thought making better products was too expensive because they believed defects were unavoidable and could only be fixed through more checking and redoing work. What it does: Explains the "old thinking" in the quality revolution analogy. Source/Type: Author's historical explanation. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the quality revolution version of sentence 3's pollution problem - both involve thinking improvement is "too expensive." Visualization: 1980s managers: "We make 1000 products, 200 are defective. To improve quality = hire more inspectors + redo defective products = too expensive!" Reading Strategy Insight: This should feel familiar! It's the same "too expensive" thinking we just heard about pollution. The parallel is becoming clear. |
| What lay behind the old view was the assumption that both product design and production processes were unalterable. | What it says: The reason managers thought quality improvement was too expensive was because they believed they couldn't change how they designed or made products. What it does: Explains the root cause of the "old thinking" about quality. Source/Type: Author's analytical explanation. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 6 by explaining WHY managers thought quality was too expensive - they assumed they couldn't change their fundamental processes. Visualization: Managers thinking: "Our design process is fixed, our production process is fixed → defects are inevitable → only solution is expensive inspection/rework" Reading Strategy Insight: This is getting to the heart of the analogy. If this was the wrong assumption about quality, there's probably a parallel wrong assumption about pollution. |
| As a result of the quality revolution, companies now view defects as a sign of inefficient product and process design, not as an inevitable by-product of manufacturing. | What it says: After the quality revolution, companies stopped seeing defects as unavoidable and started seeing them as signs that their design or manufacturing process needed improvement. What it does: Shows the "new thinking" that replaced the old view about quality. Source/Type: Author's factual statement about post-revolution thinking. Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly contrasts with sentences 6-7's "old view" and shows the transformation in thinking. Visualization: New thinking: "200 defects out of 1000 products = our design/process is flawed → fix the process → prevent defects → cheaper than inspection/rework" Reading Strategy Insight: This is the key parallel! Just like sentence 4 said about pollution, this shows viewing problems as inefficiency rather than inevitable costs. |
| Like product defects, industrial pollution often reveals flaws in product design or production processes. | What it says: Just as defects show problems with how products are designed or made, pollution also shows these same kinds of problems. What it does: Makes the direct connection between the quality analogy and pollution - this is the payoff of the analogy. Source/Type: Author's analytical conclusion. Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly connects sentence 8's lesson about defects to the pollution issue from sentences 1-4. The word "Like" makes the parallel explicit. Visualization: Quality Revolution: Defects → Signal of design/process flaws Pollution Issue: Pollution → Signal of design/process flaws Reading Strategy Insight: Major simplification moment! All that quality revolution detail was just to make this one clear point about pollution. |
| Companies can eliminate pollution and follow the basic principles of the quality revolution by using materials more efficiently, by obviating the need for hazardous and hard-to-handle materials, and by eliminating unneeded activities. | What it says: Companies can get rid of pollution by applying quality revolution principles: use materials better, avoid dangerous materials that are hard to work with, and cut out unnecessary steps. What it does: Provides concrete solutions that combine the quality revolution approach with pollution prevention. Source/Type: Author's prescriptive recommendations. Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives specific actions for the general principle established in sentences 4 and 9 - how to actually treat pollution as inefficiency rather than inevitable cost. Visualization: Solution 1: Use 80 units of material instead of 100 (more efficient) Solution 2: Replace toxic chemical X with safer chemical Y (easier to handle) Solution 3: Eliminate production step that creates waste (remove unneeded activity) What We Know Now: Complete argument from problem identification to historical parallel to concrete solutions. Reading Strategy Insight: This is pure reinforcement! The author is giving us practical steps for the main argument - no new complexity, just actionable conclusion. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To convince companies to change how they think about pollution costs by drawing parallels to how the quality revolution changed thinking about product defects.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by comparing pollution management to a successful business transformation:
- First, the author describes two approaches companies use to handle pollution - the old way of cleaning up after pollution happens and the newer way of preventing pollution before it starts.
- Next, the author points out the main problem: companies using either approach still think pollution control costs too much money, and then offers a solution - companies should view pollution as wasted resources that already cost them money.
- Then, the author supports this idea by explaining how the quality revolution of the 1980s solved a similar problem - managers used to think quality improvement was too expensive because they assumed defects were unavoidable, but they learned to see defects as signs of flawed processes that could be fixed.
- Finally, the author connects this lesson directly to pollution, arguing that pollution shows the same kind of process flaws and can be eliminated using quality revolution principles like using materials more efficiently and cutting out unnecessary steps.
Main Point:
Companies should stop viewing pollution as an expensive problem to deal with and instead see it as a sign of wasteful processes that are already costing them money - just like companies learned to view product defects during the quality revolution.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify what the author means by "opportunity costs" as the term is used in the passage. We need to find the specific context where "opportunity costs" appears and understand how the author defines or explains this concept.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that "opportunity costs" appears in sentence 4, which presents the author's main argument. The passage analysis shows this is where the author introduces their key insight about reframing pollution costs. Specifically:
- The author argues companies should "view environmental improvement in terms of efficient use of resources"
- Companies should "recognize that pollution has 'opportunity costs'"
- The author immediately defines these opportunity costs as "wasted resources, wasted effort, and diminished product value for customers"
- This connects to the broader theme that pollution represents inefficiency rather than inevitable costs
Prethinking:
Based on our passage analysis, the author uses "opportunity costs" to refer to what companies are already losing because of pollution - not additional expenses they would incur to fix pollution, but resources, effort, and value they're currently wasting. The author's main point is that pollution isn't just something that costs money to fix; it's something that's already costing companies money by representing inefficient use of resources. This aligns with the quality revolution analogy where defects weren't just expensive to fix - they represented fundamental inefficiencies in the process itself.
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage focuses on costs to companies, not consumers
• "Opportunity costs" in the passage refers to what pollution costs companies in wasted resources, not what new product development costs consumers
• The author's argument is about changing how companies view their own pollution-related losses
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Does "diminished product value for customers" mean costs to consumers?
→ No, this refers to how pollution makes products less valuable, which costs the company through reduced competitiveness, not direct costs to consumers
1. Isn't product development mentioned in the passage?
→ The passage discusses product design changes to prevent pollution, but "opportunity costs" specifically refers to current losses from pollution, not development expenses
Why It's Wrong:
• This misinterprets the author's argument about cost perception
• The author isn't discussing keeping pollution control costs low; they're arguing companies should recognize hidden costs of pollution itself
• "Opportunity costs" refers to what pollution currently costs companies, not financial consequences of cost control decisions
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the passage talk about companies viewing pollution control as expensive?
→ Yes, but the "opportunity costs" concept is the author's solution to this problem, not a discussion of keeping control costs low
1. Isn't this about financial ramifications?
→ While opportunity costs are financial, they specifically refer to losses from pollution itself, not ramifications of cost control strategies
Why It's Wrong:
• This confuses "opportunity costs" with "opportunities" in general
• "Opportunity costs" is an economic term referring to losses, not opportunities to take action
• The passage uses "opportunity costs" to describe current losses from pollution, not future opportunities for prevention
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the passage discuss pollution prevention opportunities?
→ Yes, but "opportunity costs" specifically refers to current losses ("wasted resources, wasted effort, and diminished product value"), not prevention opportunities
1. Aren't opportunity costs and opportunities the same thing?
→ No, opportunity costs are economic losses from choosing one option over another, while opportunities are chances to take beneficial action
Why It's Right:
• Directly matches the author's definition of opportunity costs as "wasted resources, wasted effort, and diminished product value"
• Aligns with the economic definition of opportunity costs as losses or foregone benefits
• Fits the author's main argument that pollution represents current losses, not just future expenses
• Connects to the quality revolution analogy where defects represented lost efficiency and value
Key Evidence: "companies must learn to view environmental improvement in terms of efficient use of resources and to recognize that pollution has 'opportunity costs'—wasted resources, wasted effort, and diminished product value for customers."
Why It's Wrong:
• This reverses the author's argument about costs
• The passage argues that companies wrongly view pollution prevention as expensive, but "opportunity costs" refers to current losses from pollution, not prevention expenses
• The author wants companies to recognize that pollution already costs them money through inefficiency
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the passage say pollution prevention costs money?
→ The passage says companies perceive it as expensive, but the author's point is that pollution itself already costs more through "opportunity costs"
1. Isn't preventing pollution a cost to industries?
→ The author argues prevention actually saves money by eliminating the opportunity costs of pollution (wasted resources, effort, and value)