TTGWD2-Q17的一題邏輯!

[positivegal]

TTGWD2-Q17
Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

答案是E
可是我不太懂E的意思耶~ 是說用一樣的機器嗎?
且B為何不對呢?
請高人指點~~

[cktseng]

TTGWD2-Q17
Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides. New environmental regulations have significantly increased the cost of disposing of salt water that results from this use, and, in consequence, Tanco is considering a plan to use potassium chloride in place of common salt. Research has shown that Tanco could reprocess the by-product of potassium chloride use to yield a crop fertilizer, leaving a relatively small volume of waste for disposal.

In determining the impact on company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt, it would be important for Tanco to research all of the following EXCEPT:

A. What difference, if any, is there between the cost of the common salt needed to preserve a given quantity of animal hides and the cost of the potassium chloride needed to preserve the same quantity of hides?
B. To what extent is the equipment involved in preserving animal hides using common salt suitable for preserving animal hides using potassium chloride?
C. What environmental regulations, if any, constrain the disposal of the waste generated in reprocessing the by-product of potassium chloride?
D. How closely does leather that results when common salt is used to preserve hides resemble that which results when potassium chloride is used?
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

答案是E
可是我不太懂E的意思耶~ 是說用一樣的機器嗎?
且B為何不對呢?
請高人指點~~

我覺得答案是C
company profits of using potassium chloride in place of common salt 跟 What environmental regulations沒有關係

[dibert8]

為了不枉費題目的敘述,我來坄 (C) 一票: 為環保法規而捨 SW 就PC, 而且 PC 有利環保(副產品可以做肥料),環保法規這個因素應該不用再重複考慮了.
(A) cost 當然要考慮囉!
(B) 機器使用率 = cost, 要考慮囉!
(D) 像不像關係到東西賣不賣得出去,要考慮囉!
(E) 化學性質是否能有效地保存皮革,這也是 cost 呀! (e.g. 牽涉到是否要常換化學藥水,溫濕控制,加油添醋等等,要 $$ 的囉!)

[lucyyeh]

我很仔細的解讀每個選項後，我覺得E選有它對的原因
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

我覺得這個句子是 postassium chloride 的化學性質跟 slat的化學性質做比較
但注意句子再propteries後面都有 that喔，that 後面說有效(an effective means) ，所以對廠商來說，這兩個方法都是有效的，那化學性質有沒有完全一樣，是不需要考慮的。

C. 雖然有點牽強，可是換pastassium chloride的目的就是要避免觸犯環保法規而被罰錢，那如果沒有查清楚，後來才發現pastassuim chloride也會觸犯環保法規也要罰錢，那還不是影響到公司的獲利。

[cktseng]

我很仔細的解讀每個選項後，我覺得E選有它對的原因
E. Are the chemical properties that make potassium chloride an effective means for preserving animal hides the same as those that make common salt an effective means for doing so?

我覺得這個句子是 postassium chloride 的化學性質跟 slat的化學性質做比較
但注意句子再propteries後面都有 that喔，that 後面說有效(an effective means) ，所以對廠商來說，這兩個方法都是有效的，那化學性質有沒有完全一樣，是不需要考慮的。

C. 雖然有點牽強，可是換pastassium chloride的目的就是要避免觸犯環保法規而被罰錢，那如果沒有查清楚，後來才發現pastassuim chloride也會觸犯環保法規也要罰錢，那還不是影響到公司的獲利。

做錯這一題之後仔細看E的選項才發現自已被騙了 這是陷阱題

[dibert8]

還是覺得應該選 (C), 原因在比較處理 SW 和 relatively small volume 的 PC 廢棄物.SW 是主原料,用量可想遠大於 PC 副產物再利用所剩下的廢棄物.法規所產生的 cost 兩相權衡,後者應小於前者,因此以獲利的觀點,這點費用應該不需再考量,反而應該把重心放在換了 PC 之後衍生的成本.

[lucyyeh]

不不～我今天又栽在此題，
因此我更加確認E是對的，因為以E的句子結構來說，這兩種化學物質都是有效的，所以化學性質有沒有一樣are the chemical properties.... the same as those ....
是跟profit不相關的

[cabinet]

同意lucyyeh
選項E的意思是指(先不要看that子句，會誤導) 「兩者的化學物質是否一樣？」，並不是「兩者的化學物質是否一樣有效？」
就前者意思而言，即使兩者化學物質不一樣，只要能夠達到目標(成本下降)就可以了，所以E選項正確。