Question

Answer the questions on the basis of the data given in the two charts below.

Sodium carbonate, also called soda ash, is an important ingredient for glass, soap, detergents and many other products. There are two ways to produce soda ash. The first is producing soda ash from trona, which is obtained naturally; this is called natural soda ash. The second is producing soda ash from common salt through the Solvay process; soda ash made this way is called synthetic soda ash. Tata Chemicals was one of the largest producers of soda ash. The charts below show Tata Chemicals' own production of the two varieties of soda ash, and the world's total production of the two varieties.

68. It was expected that global soda ash production would stay the same in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (only for this question). What could be a possible reason for the different patterns of production shown by Tata Chemicals and the world?

• A. Tata Chemicals build new plants of 2.2 MT natural soda ash capacity in 2007.
• B. Tata Chemicals build 3.2 MT of natural soda ash capacity from 2005 to 2008.
• C. Tata Chemicals produced 2.7% of total soda ash in the world.
• D. Tata Chemicals might have acquired 0.3 MT of natural soda ash facility in 2007.

Hint:

Compare the change in Tata's natural soda ash output with the assumption that the world's total stayed flat, to see whether new capacity or a takeover fits better.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The Tata Chemicals chart shows its natural and synthetic soda ash production over three years, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Reading the bars: natural soda ash was \(0\) MT in 2006, rose to \(0.3\) MT in 2007 and then jumped sharply to \(3.2\) MT in 2008, while synthetic soda ash moved from \(0.7\) MT in 2006 to \(2.2\) MT in 2007 and stayed at \(2.2\) MT in 2008. For this question we assume the WORLD total stayed the same across all three years.

If the world total is fixed, any large jump in one company's own output has to be balanced somewhere else in the industry, since the total pie is not growing. Testing each option against this rule:

1. A. Tata Chemicals build new plants of 2.2 MT natural soda ash capacity in 2007. The natural soda ash figure for 2007 is \(0.3\) MT, not \(2.2\) MT (\(2.2\) MT is actually the synthetic figure for that year), so this option mixes up the two series and does not match the chart. It is also inconsistent with a flat world total, since brand new capacity would add to the world's output.
2. B. Tata Chemicals build 3.2 MT of natural soda ash capacity from 2005 to 2008. The number \(3.2\) MT does match the natural soda ash figure in 2008, but saying Tata "built" this much brand new capacity while the world total stayed flat does not add up, since new capacity built by Tata should raise the world figure too, unless other producers cut back by exactly as much, which is not stated.
3. C. Tata Chemicals produced 2.7% of total soda ash in the world. This is a claim about a share at one point in time. It says nothing about why the pattern of growth differs between Tata and the world, so it cannot explain the difference in patterns even if it were true.
4. D. Tata Chemicals might have acquired 0.3 MT of natural soda ash facility in 2007. This matches the chart exactly: natural soda ash production at Tata went from \(0\) to \(0.3\) MT in 2007. Since the world total is assumed unchanged, this extra \(0.3\) MT is most simply explained by Tata taking over an already existing facility, so the same production now gets counted under Tata's name instead of adding new capacity to the world.

Option D is the only one that fits both the chart and the constraint that the world total does not change, and it is careful to say "might have acquired" rather than asserting it outright, which is the right level of certainty for a possible explanation.

Let's summarize:

• Reading the two Tata bars, natural soda ash goes from \(0\) to \(0.3\) MT to \(3.2\) MT, while synthetic goes from \(0.7\) MT to \(2.2\) MT and then stays there.
• A flat world total rules out "built new capacity" explanations (A and B), since new capacity would raise the world figure.
• Acquiring an existing \(0.3\) MT facility in 2007 explains the jump without changing the world total, so option D is correct.

The correct choice is option D.