how to interpret this sentence?

[sgqx]

P: We could greatly reduce teh amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelling plan releses into the atmosphere by using a new process. The new process requires replacing our open furnances with closed ones and moving the copper from one furnance to the next in solid,not molten, form.  However, not only is the new equipment expensvive to buy and install, but the new process also costs more to run than the current process, because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled.  So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit.

S: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnances are extermely fuel-efficient.

Question: The point about which S expresses disagree with P is:

Answer:  whether the new copper-smelting process is more expensive to run than the current process. 

Then, my question is how to understand S' response "I agree with your overall conclusion?" 

[maxse]

I think it means that S agrees with the overall conclusion which is that adopting the new process will cost much. S goes to state however that it does not neccessarily mean that it will bring no profit to the company because the latest ones are very efficient, and perhaps be cheaper in the long run....

At least thats what I think

[ghostpirate]

the question seems a hair off, you're right.  However, I'd say that the second guy was probably only saying that so as not to offend the original speaker.  In industry people do that all the time when they completely disagree with the proposal and consider the person making the proposal to be a complete idiot.  In effect that's what's going on here, and no matter what answer you choose that's the case because in claiming that the process is more efficient the second speaker has already disagreed with the first speaker's "overall conclusion".  "You are right, except that you're completely wrong."  The answer is appropriate because that's the element of the original conclusion that the second speaker has contradicted; in particular, the operating cost rather than capital expenditure.

[Dewitt]

I think it means that S agrees with the overall conclusion which is that adopting the new process will cost much. S goes to state however that it does not neccessarily mean that it will bring no profit to the company because the latest ones are very efficient, and perhaps be cheaper in the long run....

At least thats what I think

i think you're right. but this sentence

"So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit."

is confusing. "but" indicates a shift in the argument. however, saying something will yield no profit after saying something will cost much is not a shift. shouldn't it say "and" instead of "but?"

and am i right to say that "adopting the new process will cost much" is the conclusion? but "bring the company no profit" is not?

[Atossa]

Jim Morrison wrote: "You're not getting young, But you're going to die".  It has perplexed me since the day I heard it.  Ouch!

[Atossa]

I guess that's why and/but are often  interchangeable conjunctions when used in formal logic.  The truth value of the statements do not change depending on them...

[ghostpirate]

No.  If the new process is more fuel efficient, it will bring the company profit eventually.  The only way both statements could be right is if the lifetime of the smelters is less than the time it would take for the fuel efficiency to more than pay for the price difference.  That seems unrealistic to me.