Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardEvaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance

A commercial shipping line plans to apply a newly developed acoustic barnacle-repellent coating to the hulls of all its ocean-going container ships. Preliminary testing indicates that by preventing marine biofouling, the coating reduces hydrodynamic drag and decreases annual fuel consumption per vessel by 12 percent. Based on these fuel savings, management concludes that the financial savings from decreased fuel consumption will fully offset the high initial cost of purchasing and applying the coating within two years. Which of the following inquiries would be most useful to evaluate the validity of management's conclusion?

  1. Whether the continuous acoustic vibrations emitted by the coating cause micro-fractures in vessel hulls that require costly structural repairs within the first two years.Answer
  2. B
    Whether competing international shipping lines plan to implement similar acoustic hull-coating technologies within the next two years.
  3. C
    Whether the coating achieves a higher percentage reduction in fuel consumption on large container ships than on smaller harbor tugboats.
  4. D
    Whether the shipping line could offset the coating's installation costs more rapidly by retiring and selling its oldest un-coated container ships.
  5. E
    Whether preventing barnacle settlement contributes more to drag reduction than preventing algae accumulation on the hull surface.

Answer

The most useful inquiry to evaluate the argument is whether the continuous acoustic vibrations emitted by the coating cause micro-fractures in vessel hulls that require costly structural repairs within the first two years.
The correct answer identifies a potential side effect (costly hull repairs caused by acoustic vibrations) that directly affects whether net savings will cover initial installation costs within two years. Applying the Test of Variance shows that if structural repairs are required, the added expense negates the net recovery goal (weakening the argument); if no repairs are needed, fuel savings cleanly cover the initial investment (strengthening the argument).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the core premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Acoustic coating prevents biofouling, reducing drag and cutting annual fuel use by 12 percent. Conclusion: Operational fuel savings will fully offset the initial purchase and application costs within two years.
Evaluating an argument requires isolating the explicit leap from premise (fuel savings) to conclusion (net financial recovery within two years).
2
Identify unstated assumptions and potential hidden costs.
The argument assumes that no unmentioned operational or maintenance expenses created by applying the coating will undermine the net financial savings during the two-year period.
If implementing the plan introduces unexpected secondary costs, those costs could cancel out the projected fuel savings.
3
Apply the Test of Variance to the correct evaluation inquiry.
If YES (vibrations cause structural damage requiring costly repairs in the first two years), the extra repair costs will offset fuel savings, causing the plan to fail its two-year cost-recovery target (WEAKENS). If NO (vibrations cause no structural damage or extra repair costs), the projected fuel savings remain unencumbered, supporting two-year cost recovery (STRENGTHENS).
An evaluation choice is valid under GMAT standards if extreme opposite answers yield opposite logical impacts on the conclusion.

Key Concept

Evaluating Argument Validity & Test of Variance
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance

More questions from this topic