Q5

[LSAT-Chang]

I correctly chose (D), however, was very tempted by the rest of the answer choices. Could someone kindly walk through the incorrect answer choices for me?

[ohthatpatrick]

Questions that go beyond the passage in RC (most analogous, most strengthens, most weakens) are tough, because our normal standards of proof (in the passage vs. not in the passage) don't apply the same way.

Instead, we're normally forced to consider what detail/sentence/slogan from the passage the answer choice expects us to use, and then just keep measuring each answer choice against that reference detail.

In this case, we need to consult the definition of "designed offal": 'tailoring the production of waste from a manufacturing process so that the waste can be fed directly back into that process or a related one'

The key to differentiating D from the other 4 choices is to focus on the idea that a company tailored the production of waste from a manufacturing process into something usable.

A) The paper company bought recycled newspapers - that's not waste from a manufacturing process
B) The company stripped metal from buildings - not waste from a manufacturing process
C) The company buys metal from trash heap cars - that's not waste from a manufacturing process
D) The company uses the plastic left over from its production of body panels --- Boom! waste from a manufacturing process
E) The company gets recycled beverage containers - that's not waste from a manufacturing process

The four answers involve re-purposing something that would otherwise be trash ... but the companies are just grabbing these raw materials from somewhere else; they're not creating the raw materials through their own manufacturing process.

Hope this helps.

[slimjimsquinn]

Could you also say that D) is the only choice where the waste is fed directly back into the process?

"Tailoring the production of waste from a manufacturing process so the waste from the process can be directly fed back into that process or a related one"

Plastic is the waste that goes back into making panels for doors of automobiles, which is what the company manufacturers.

Is this proper reasoning?