PrepTest 94+, Section 4, Question 1

Difficulty:

Montoya: Many industrial chemical processes that currently use organic solvents could use ionic liquids instead. Ionic liquids are less hazardous to workers and generate less air pollution. Moreover, some reactions occur at a faster rate or yield smaller quantities of unwanted by-products when ionic liquids are used. So chemical companies should begin using ionic liquids for many reactions that currently use organic solvents.

Peterson: Ionic liquids cost many times as much as organic solvents, so they are currently not practical for the chemical industry.

Question

Of the following, which one, if true, is the strongest counter Montoya could make to Peterson's argument?

The cost of organic solvents is only one of many expenses involved in industrial production of chemicals.

New methods for removing by-products of chemical reactions have recently been developed.

The chemical industry has historically been quick to adopt new techniques that increase the rate at which reactions occur.

Ionic liquids can be reused many times, whereas organic solvents can be used only once.

For the sake of public relations, companies will sometimes use a more environmentally friendly process even if it is slightly more expensive.

Raise Hand ✋

Explanations

Montoya v. Peterson

Weakener: Montoya's retort

Montoya and Peterson have beef over the use of organic solvents versus ionic liquids in chemical compounding.

Montoya wants ionic liquids for safety and environmental reasons. Peterson argues against ionic liquids, saying they're cost prohibitive (many times more expensive).

The question asks us to find the answer that would best help Montoya weaken Peterson's argument. Since Peterson's argument is completely focused on costs, I predict we'll need an answer that diminishes the impact of those costs. Something like, "We can use an ionic compound 20 times as often as we use an organic solvent." Or perhaps, "The cost to dispose of organic solvents compared to ionic liquids is as great as the cost to purchase ionic liquids compared to organic solvents."

Let's take a look at the answer choices.

Trap. This is wrong. Even if the cost of organic solvents is only one of several expenses, the cost of the ionic liquids could still be many orders of magnitude larger than the overall cost of the organic solvents.

Wrong. This is completely unrelated to Peterson's argument.

Also wrong. Similar to B, this is completely outside the scope of Peterson's argument.

There we go. If we can use ionic liquids many times, then the cost differential may well be worth it, especially considering the environmental and safety benefits. This is the answer.

This is wrong. It's a retort, but a bad one. Peterson's argument was about costs. We need to derail that idea, not introduce some additional consideration about how companies go green for PR.