RC Hazelton coal processing

[soundok]

The Hazelton coal-processing plant is a major employer in the Hazelton area, but national environmental regulations will force it to close if it continues to use old, polluting processing methods. However, to update the plant to use newer, cleaner methods would be so expensive that the plant will close unless it receives the tax break it has requested. In order to prevent a major increase in local unemployment, the Hazelton government is considering granting the plant's request.

Which of following woud be most important for the Hazelton government to determine before deciding whether to grant the plant's request?

A. Whether the company that owns the plant would open a new plant in another area if the present plant were closed.

B. Whether the plant would employ far fewer workers when updated than it does now.

C. Whether the level of pollutants presently being emitted by the plant is high enough to constitute a health hazard for local residents.

D. Whether the majority of the coal processed by the plant is sold outside the Hazelton area.

E. Whether the plant would be able to process more coal when updated than it does now.

Exhausted!

Ans: B. I can not understant this answer. The government's purpose is to prevent a increase in local unemployment. But "employ far fewer worker" as B said means the plant would still employ workers and there is no layoff. So, I think B is not relevent to the plan's arguement.

[stock.mojo11]

The Hazelton coal-processing plant is a major employer in the Hazelton area, but national environmental regulations will force it to close if it continues to use old, polluting processing methods. However, to update the plant to use newer, cleaner methods would be so expensive that the plant will close unless it receives the tax break it has requested. In order to prevent a major increase in local unemployment, the Hazelton government is considering granting the plant's request.

Which of following woud be most important for the Hazelton government to determine before deciding whether to grant the plant's request?

A. Whether the company that owns the plant would open a new plant in another area if the present plant were closed.

B. Whether the plant would employ far fewer workers when updated than it does now.

C. Whether the level of pollutants presently being emitted by the plant is high enough to constitute a health hazard for local residents.

D. Whether the majority of the coal processed by the plant is sold outside the Hazelton area.

E. Whether the plant would be able to process more coal when updated than it does now.

Exhausted!

Ans: B. I can not understant this answer. The government's purpose is to prevent a increase in local unemployment. But "employ far fewer worker" as B said means the plant would still employ workers and there is no layoff. So, I think B is not relevent to the plan's arguement.

In order to prevent a major increase in local unemployment, the Hazelton government is considering granting the plant's request.


Major increase in unemployment needs to be prevented and hence H Gov is considering tax break. What if the Coal Company, takes the tax break, employs new methods to clean coal and employs fewer people (say because of a leap in technology), Unemployment will go up.

[rugaral]

the governement's goal is to prevent rise in employment. HCP will close without the tax break due to environmental regulations, if it does not get support from government (tax break). Since the government's main goal is to prevent rise in employment, it has to make sure that by granting the tax break, it not only allows HCO to stay open, but that employment does not increase as a result of the upgrade

It is assumed that an upgrade will result in retrenchment because more machines will be used and there will be less need for people.

[RonPurewal]

go back and read more carefully. pay attention to LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE.

--

you wrote:

The government's purpose is to prevent a increase in local unemployment.

"increase in local unemployment" is a fancy way of saying "loss of jobs".
so,
the ultimate goal here is to PREVENT THE LOSS OF JOBS.

But "employ far fewer worker" as B said means the plant would still employ workers and there is no layoff.

there seems to be a language barrier / idiom problem here, because, no, that is not at all what this means.

note the words: "FAR FEWER workers".
this means that the # of workers will be FAR LOWER than it is now.
this means that many, many workers will LOSE THEIR JOBS.

so, this is directly relevant.

--

what did you think was the correct answer? do you understand why the other answers are wrong?

[ashish.jere]

how not to get distracted by choice (c)?
(is it because (c) has 'being'? i am just kidding! :D)


i have read that in such question types (evaluate/determine) we need to focus on the CONCLUSION. please validate and give me some TAKEAWAYS.

[selva.e]

CORRECT!

But you also have to concentrate on question.

However, to update the plant to use newer, cleaner methods would be so expensive that the plant will close unless it receives the tax break it has requested.

In order to prevent a major increase in local unemployment, the Hazelton government is considering granting the plant's request.

Which of following woud be most important for the Hazelton government to determine before deciding whether to grant the plant's request?

In order to prevent a major increase in local unemployment government has to grant the plant's request.( tax break ) Otherwise, the plant will close resulting in local unemployment.

[RonPurewal]

how not to get distracted by choice (c)?

if you're AT ALL "distracted by choice (c)", then you have some work to do in understanding the way CR works.

choice (c), which deals with "health hazards to local residents", has NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANYTHING in the passage.
the only notions that are relevant to the argument in the passage are:
* polluting methods
* government legislation
* expense associated with updating
* possible closing
* unemployment

unless choice (c) actually CONNECTS health hazards to the locals with one of these concepts, it's totally irrelevant.

[ashish.jere]

Thanks. I solved the question again now. As you said, (c) is irrelevant.

how not to get distracted by choice (c)?

if you're AT ALL "distracted by choice (c)", then you have some work to do in understanding the way CR works.

choice (c), which deals with "health hazards to local residents", has NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANYTHING in the passage.
the only notions that are relevant to the argument in the passage are:
* polluting methods
* government legislation
* expense associated with updating
* possible closing
* unemployment

unless choice (c) actually CONNECTS health hazards to the locals with one of these concepts, it's totally irrelevant.

[RonPurewal]

sweet.