Journalist: Scrapping old freight ships for their steel tends to be big business, particularly when new shipbuilding is surging. The...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Journalist: Scrapping old freight ships for their steel tends to be big business, particularly when new shipbuilding is surging. The Hong Kong International Convention of 2009 sets minimum standards for ship recycling, a highly polluting activity, but countries that have not ratified the convention account for two-thirds of global scrapping. Nevertheless, although shipbuilding is surging, the total amount of pollution generated by ship recycling is likely to decrease in the near future.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the journalist's prediction?

Although modifying scrapyards to comply with the convention involves significant up-front costs, the ongoing cost of compliance is minimal.

Because the ships currently being built require less fuel per unit of freight, their overall environmental impact is less than the impact of the older ships.

Increased worldwide production of steel has led to a significant drop in the price of the metal.

Scrapyards in countries that have not ratified the convention are free to adhere to its restrictions if they choose to.

The price of transporting freight has fallen dramatically over the past decade.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Scrapping old freight ships for their steel tends to be big business, particularly when new shipbuilding is surging.	What it says: Ship scrapping is profitable, especially when lots of new ships are being built What it does: Sets up the context about the ship scrapping industry What it is: Author's background statement Visualization: New shipbuilding surging → More demand for steel → Ship scrapping becomes more profitable (like a supply chain effect)
The Hong Kong International Convention of 2009 sets minimum standards for ship recycling, a highly polluting activity, but countries that have not ratified the convention account for two-thirds of global scrapping.	What it says: There are pollution standards for ship recycling, but most scrapping (67%) happens in countries that didn't agree to these standards What it does: Introduces the pollution problem and shows most scrapping isn't regulated What it is: Factual information about regulations Visualization: Global ship scrapping: 67% in unregulated countries vs 33% in regulated countries
Nevertheless, although shipbuilding is surging, the total amount of pollution generated by ship recycling is likely to decrease in the near future.	What it says: Even though more ships are being built (which we'd expect to mean more scrapping), total pollution from ship recycling will probably go down soon What it does: Makes a surprising prediction that contradicts what we'd expect from the earlier facts What it is: Author's main conclusion/prediction Visualization: Expected: More shipbuilding → More scrapping → More pollution Prediction: More shipbuilding BUT Less total pollution (counterintuitive)

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by telling us ship scrapping is big business when shipbuilding surges. Then it shows us there's a pollution problem because most scrapping happens in unregulated countries. Finally, it makes a surprising prediction that goes against what we'd expect - even though shipbuilding is surging, pollution will decrease.

Main Conclusion:

The total amount of pollution from ship recycling will likely decrease in the near future, despite the surge in shipbuilding.

Logical Structure:

This is actually an incomplete argument - the journalist makes a prediction that seems to contradict the facts presented, but doesn't give us the reasoning. We know shipbuilding is surging (which should increase scrapping and pollution) and that most scrapping happens in polluting countries, yet somehow pollution will decrease. The question asks us to find what would support this surprising prediction.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the journalist's surprising prediction more believable

Precision of Claims

The key claim is about total pollution amounts decreasing despite increased shipbuilding activity. We need to focus on factors that could reduce overall pollution from ship recycling specifically

Strategy

The journalist predicts that total pollution from ship recycling will decrease even though shipbuilding is surging (which normally means more scrapping and more pollution). We need to find scenarios that explain how this counterintuitive outcome could happen. We should look for factors that could either reduce the pollution per ship scrapped, reduce the total number of ships being scrapped despite increased shipbuilding, or shift scrapping to cleaner methods

Answer Choices Explained

Although modifying scrapyards to comply with the convention involves significant up-front costs, the ongoing cost of compliance is minimal.

This doesn't help support the prediction because the passage tells us that countries accounting for two-thirds of global scrapping haven't ratified the convention anyway. Even if compliance costs become minimal over time, this wouldn't affect the majority of scrapping operations that aren't bound by these standards. This choice doesn't explain why total pollution would decrease.

Because the ships currently being built require less fuel per unit of freight, their overall environmental impact is less than the impact of the older ships.

This talks about the environmental impact of operating ships (fuel consumption), but we need something that affects the pollution from ship recycling/scrapping specifically. The fuel efficiency of new ships doesn't directly impact how much pollution is generated when ships are eventually scrapped for steel.

Increased worldwide production of steel has led to a significant drop in the price of the metal.

This directly supports the prediction! The passage establishes that ship scrapping is 'big business' because there's demand for steel. If steel prices drop significantly, scrapping ships for their steel becomes much less profitable. When scrapping becomes less profitable, fewer ships will be scrapped even though shipbuilding is surging. Less scrapping means less total pollution from ship recycling, which perfectly explains the journalist's counterintuitive prediction.

Scrapyards in countries that have not ratified the convention are free to adhere to its restrictions if they choose to.

The key phrase here is 'if they choose to.' Just because scrapyards are free to follow cleaner standards doesn't mean they will actually do so, especially since the passage indicates most scrapping happens in these unregulated countries precisely because they can avoid such restrictions. This doesn't provide strong support for reduced pollution.

The price of transporting freight has fallen dramatically over the past decade.

This affects shipping costs but doesn't directly relate to ship scrapping or the pollution generated during the recycling process. Lower transportation costs might affect shipping demand but doesn't explain why ship recycling pollution would decrease despite increased shipbuilding.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...