#25 - Environmentalist: It takes less energy to make molten glass from

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[AJITSHARMA880]

Could someone please explain this in a simpler form? I cannot understand why D is correct. I also do not get the assumption being made in this question.

Thank you.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi AJITSHARMA880!

Let's start by breaking down our stimulus:

Premise 1: It takes less energy to make molten glass from recycled materials than from raw materials.
Premise 2: Once the recycled materials are made into molten glass, the process of making bottles is the same as with raw materials.
Premise 3: Soft drink bottlers who use recycled glass have significant energy savings.
Conclusion: Therefore, bottlers can use recycled glass to both lower their costs and benefit the environment simultaneously.

So, what do we know based on our stimulus? The energy costs to make molten glass are less when using recycled materials versus raw materials. However, we don't know anything about the other costs involved. What if recycled materials are more expensive to procure? What if they break more easily during manufacturing, thereby requiring more material? There are a number of other factors that could potentially make recycled materials more expensive than raw materials that the stimulus just doesn't address. So, in order for our conclusion to be true (i.e. that using recycled materials will allow bottlers to cut costs), we need to assume that there aren't other factors making the use of recycled materials more expensive.

This leads us to Answer Choice D: "Purchasing and transport costs are not so much greater for recycled glass than for raw materials that they outweigh the savings in energy costs resulting from the use of recycled glass."

This tells us that other costly factors of using recycled materials do not outweigh the cost-saving benefits of using recycled materials.

I hope this helps!