Yacob: Because of inflation, manufacturing the least valuable coins in our nation's currency now costs more than their face value....

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

Yacob: Because of inflation, manufacturing the least valuable coins in our nation's currency now costs more than their face value. To solve this problem, the national bank plans to start manufacturing the coins from plastic, at a cost of about eighty percent of their face value. However, this solution is inadvisable, since it is quite easy to produce counterfeits of plastic coins.

Which of the following, if pointed out by an advocate of the national bank's plan, would most help support the plan by countering Yacob's objection?

It would cost about one and one-half times as much for any criminal operation to counterfeit the plastic coins as it would for the national bank to manufacture them.

Very few if any counterfeits of the current metal coins have ever been produced.

The national bank could easily manufacture the coins for less than face value by using cheaper metals rather than plastic and thereby deter counterfeiters.

Because the cost of the metal from which the coins are currently made is rapidly decreasing, it will soon cost only about sixty percent of the face value of the coins to manufacture them from metal.

Several other nations have recently started making their least valuable coins from plastic, successfully reducing manufacturing costs.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Because of inflation, manufacturing the least valuable coins in our nation's currency now costs more than their face value.	What it says: Making the cheapest coins costs more money than what the coins are worth What it does: Sets up the economic problem that needs solving What it is: Background context/problem statement Visualization: If a penny is worth 1 cent, it now costs 1.2 cents to make
To solve this problem, the national bank plans to start manufacturing the coins from plastic, at a cost of about eighty percent of their face value.	What it says: The national bank wants to use plastic instead of metal to make coins cheaper What it does: Presents the proposed solution to the cost problem What it is: National bank's proposed solution Visualization: Making a 1 cent coin would cost 0.8 cents with plastic vs 1.2 cents with current materials
However, this solution is inadvisable, since it is quite easy to produce counterfeits of plastic coins.	What it says: Yacob thinks plastic coins are a bad idea because they're easy to fake What it does: Directly opposes the bank's plan with a security concern What it is: Yacob's main objection to the proposal

Argument Flow:

Yacob starts by acknowledging there's a real problem - coins cost too much to make. He then presents the national bank's proposed solution of using plastic. Finally, he argues against this solution by pointing out a major flaw - plastic coins would be too easy to counterfeit.

Main Conclusion:

The national bank's plan to manufacture coins from plastic is inadvisable.

Logical Structure:

Yacob uses a simple cause-and-effect structure: Since plastic coins can be easily counterfeited (premise), the plastic coin plan is a bad idea (conclusion). He's essentially saying the counterfeiting risk outweighs the cost savings benefit.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that would help support the national bank's plan by specifically countering Yacob's objection about counterfeiting

Precision of Claims

Yacob's objection is qualitative (ease of counterfeiting plastic coins) while the bank's solution is quantitative (reducing costs from 120% to 80% of face value)

Strategy

Since this is a strengthen question that asks us to counter Yacob's specific objection, we need to find information that either shows counterfeiting isn't actually a problem with plastic coins, or that there are ways to prevent/minimize the counterfeiting issue. We're not trying to strengthen the overall plan - we're specifically trying to neutralize Yacob's security concern.

Answer Choices Explained

It would cost about one and one-half times as much for any criminal operation to counterfeit the plastic coins as it would for the national bank to manufacture them.

This directly counters Yacob's counterfeiting concern by introducing economic deterrence. If the national bank can make plastic coins at 80% of face value but criminals would need to spend 150% of face value to counterfeit them, then counterfeiting becomes economically irrational. Even if plastic coins are physically easy to replicate, the high cost creates a natural barrier that protects against widespread counterfeiting. This transforms Yacob's security concern into a non-issue by showing the economics work against criminals.

Very few if any counterfeits of the current metal coins have ever been produced.

This talks about the current metal coins having few counterfeits, but this doesn't help the plastic coin plan at all. We already know metal coins aren't being counterfeited much, but Yacob's concern is specifically that plastic coins would be much easier to counterfeit than the current metal ones. This choice doesn't address whether plastic coins would face the same low counterfeiting rates.

The national bank could easily manufacture the coins for less than face value by using cheaper metals rather than plastic and thereby deter counterfeiters.

This actually undermines the plastic coin plan by suggesting an alternative solution (cheaper metals) that would avoid the counterfeiting problem entirely. An advocate of the plastic coin plan wouldn't use this argument since it essentially says "we should do something else instead." This choice supports abandoning plastic in favor of different metals.

Because the cost of the metal from which the coins are currently made is rapidly decreasing, it will soon cost only about sixty percent of the face value of the coins to manufacture them from metal.

Similar to Choice C, this suggests that the original problem (high manufacturing costs) will solve itself as metal prices decrease. If metal coins will soon cost only 60% of face value, then there's no need for plastic coins at all. This undermines rather than supports the plastic coin plan by showing it's unnecessary.

Several other nations have recently started making their least valuable coins from plastic, successfully reducing manufacturing costs.

While this shows plastic coins can reduce costs successfully, it completely ignores Yacob's counterfeiting objection. Knowing that other countries have saved money with plastic coins doesn't address whether those countries faced counterfeiting issues or how they handled security concerns. This doesn't counter Yacob's specific objection about the ease of counterfeiting.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...