Despite the approach of winter, oil prices to industrial customers are

OA is B.

I agree with the OA and I got it right ; but I have observed that GMAT does not want is to think too much in CR questions .. and if we think to much we assume some things and the end up providing wrong answers..but in this question we had to do some assumptions :

industrial users who consume most natural gas can quickly and cheaply switch to using oil

Despite the approach of winter, oil prices to industrial customers are exceptionally low this year and likely to remain so. Therefore, unless the winter is especially severe, the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low.

to join the two, it should go like..industrial users swith to oil.. so demand for natural gas will decrease.. which will decrease ( or maintain the same price ) of natural gas ..

this requires assumption that we have adequate supply of oil + natural gas supply will not decrease etc.. too much of thinking.. unlike GMAT CR

Do you guys agree ?

I went with C but the OA is B.. Any explanations...

The argument clearly states that "unless the winter is especially severe， the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low", So it is possible that if the winter is sever the price can change, which cannot be justified by option C

Premise 1 - Despite the approach of winter， oil prices to industrial customers are exceptionally low this year and likely to remain so.
Conclusion - unless the winter is especially severe， the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low.

Any option which link the premise and conclusion is our answer i.e. here it should link oil with natural Gas

Option B does the job perfectly.

（A） Long-term weather forecasts predict a mild winter => doesn't attach the premise " unless the winter is especially severe"
（B） The industrial users who consume most natural gas can quickly and cheaply switch to using oil instead.
（C） The largest sources of supply for both oil and natural gas are in subtropical regions unlikely to be affected by winter weather. -> therefore, the severe weather has no impact on price => against conclusion that unless the winter is especially severe， the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low.
（D） The fuel requirements of industrial users of natural gas are not seriously affected by the weather => go against conclusion " unless the winter is especially severe， the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low."
（E） Oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter weather than is the distribution of natural gas. => talk about oil price, not natural gas price

PREMISE: Despite the approach of winter， oil prices to industrial customers are exceptionally low this year and likely to remain so.

CONCLUSION: Therefore， unless the winter is especially severe， the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low.


From what I understand, it means - Oil prices are low, therefore the natural gas prices are low. (unless there's severe winter)

So it means both the prices work in unison unless there's severe winter. So the SEVERE WINTER must introduce some irregularity. Right?

E states the irregularity.

I think you mean gas prices will go down again as a result of users shifting to oil

Yes, thanks for pointing out. Edited.

(Premise 1) Oil prices to industrial customers are low this year and likely to remain so.
(Option A or B or C or D or E) This option will connect the first premise to the conclusion and strengthen the argument as a whole
(Conclusion) If winter is not severe, natural gas price will also remain low.

Lets analyse option E first
(Premise 1) Oil prices to industrial customers are low this year and likely to remain so.
(Option E) Oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter weather than is the distribution of natural gas.
If Oil distribution is severely affected by severe winter then oil price will naturally go up. demand and supply.
But Premise states that Oil prices are low and are likely to stay so. Hence oil distribution is not going to be affected. Meaning winters are not going to be severe. Even if winter is severe, it makes no difference to gas distribution because gas distribution is not affected by severe winter.
Conclusion: If winter is not severe, natural gas price will also remain low.
Option E connects the premise and conclusion nicely.

Lets check B

Oil prices to industrial customers are low this year and likely to remain so.
(B） The industrial users who consume most natural gas can quickly and cheaply switch to using oil instead.
If there are 500 oil user and 500 gas user, and if all 500 gas user switches to oil, then oil price will go up. So if winter is severe or if winter is not severe, it does not makes a 2 cent difference to anyone because half of the industries are using oil and oil price is unlikely to change and other half will quickly change to oil because they have the capabilities to do so.
Now how is this option connecting the premise and conclusion ????
Conclusion: If winter is not severe, natural gas price will also remain low.
even if winter is severe, gas price will remain unaffected because no one is using gas. remember the 500 industry who use gas can switch to oil
Option B neither strengthen our conclusion nor it connects the premise to the conclusion.

How can Option B be the right answer ????
WHAT AM I MISSING?

Can anyone explain this question using other easy real life examples.

(Premise 1) Oil prices to industrial customers are low this year and likely to remain so.
(Option A or B or C or D or E) This option will connect the first premise to the conclusion and strengthen the argument as a whole
(Conclusion) If winter is not severe, natural gas price will also remain low.

Lets analyse option E first
(Premise 1) Oil prices to industrial customers are low this year and likely to remain so.
(Option E) Oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter weather than is the distribution of natural gas.
If Oil distribution is severely affected by severe winter then oil price will naturally go up. demand and supply.
But Premise states that Oil prices are low and are likely to stay so. Hence oil distribution is not going to be affected. Meaning winters are not going to be severe. Even if winter is severe, it makes no difference to gas distribution because gas distribution is not affected by severe winter.
Conclusion: If winter is not severe, natural gas price will also remain low.
Option E connects the premise and conclusion nicely.

Lets check B

Oil prices to industrial customers are low this year and likely to remain so.
(B） The industrial users who consume most natural gas can quickly and cheaply switch to using oil instead.
If there are 500 oil user and 500 gas user, and if all 500 gas user switches to oil, then oil price will go up. So if winter is severe or if winter is not severe, it does not makes a 2 cent difference to anyone because half of the industries are using oil and oil price is unlikely to change and other half will quickly change to oil because they have the capabilities to do so.
Now how is this option connecting the premise and conclusion ????
Conclusion: If winter is not severe, natural gas price will also remain low.
even if winter is severe, gas price will remain unaffected because no one is using gas. remember the 500 industry who use gas can switch to oil
Option B neither strengthen our conclusion nor it connects the premise to the conclusion.

How can Option B be the right answer ????
WHAT AM I MISSING?

Can anyone explain this question using other easy real life examples.

Notice what has been given as a premise and what is the conclusion.

Premise: Oil prices to industrial customers are low this year and likely to remain so.
(Should be taken as true). Oil prices are likely to remain low. Reasons could be many - new oil fields, changes in import restrictions etc. So it implies that irrespective of the demand situation this year, oil prices would likely remain low.

Conclusion: If winter is not severe, natural gas price will also remain low.
Why will natural gas prices see downward pressure too assuming winters are normal? One might assume that gas prices in winters would go up because of excess demand but there would be some element putting downward pressure on gas prices.

(B） The industrial users who consume most natural gas can quickly and cheaply switch to using oil instead.
If there are 500 oil user and 500 gas user, and if all 500 gas user switches to oil, then oil price will go up. - Not correct. We are given that oil prices are likely to remain low. So it doesn't matter whether the demand goes up or not.
The point is that extra demand of oil will not push up its prices so people might shift to oil. This will decrease the demand of gas and that will put downward pressure on its price. Hence gas prices are expected to stay low too.

This is the correct answer.

(E) Oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter weather than is the distribution of natural gas.
This is out of scope for us. Note the conclusion: "if winter is not severe ..."
We are not talking about what happens if winter is severe. The scope of our argument is only what happens if the winter is not severe.

Again not convinced by the answer.
Lets add the option that is suppose to strengthen the answer and see how the entire argument pans out.
Premise 1 (Option B) The industrial users who consume most natural gas can quickly and cheaply switch to using oil instead.
Premise 2 (Given) Oil prices to industrial customers are exceptionally low this year and likely to remain so
Conclusion (Given) Therefore, unless the winter is especially severe,the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low.
Makes sense :- Not at all. Not in a million years. I have to make unwarranted assumption in the most contrived manner. I have to think about demand and supply. I have to assume that what portion of industries is oil use and what portion of industries is gas user. I am forced to take a leap of deliberate what if and what if not...

Premise 1 (Option E) Oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter weather than is the distribution of natural gas.
Meaning there is a GREATER chance that supply of oil is affected by bad weather. THERE IS ALSO A SMALLER CHANCE THAT DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS MIGHT GET AFFECTED BY BAD WEATHER. IT DOES NOT SAY ANYWHERE THAT CHANCES OF DISTRIBUTION OF GAS BEING AFFECTED ARE ZERO. If severe winter occurs, Gas distribution can be affected although to a lower degree. IT IS LESS LIKELY BIT NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
Premise 2 (Given) Oil prices to industrial customers are exceptionally low this year and likely to remain so
Conclusion (Given) Therefore, unless the winter is especially severe,the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low.
Make sense :- yes perfect sense. Do i have to make assumptions. NOPE.
The Option tells me that there is a chance however small, however farfetched that gas supply can be affected by extremely harsh and severe winter. Also notice how the argument excludes oil prices from the conclusion to avoid negating the premise 2. See the beauty of the argument. P==>Q==>(negated R as a coclusion)

Use Option E and see how the argument is not flawed anymore.

B is a TYPO at best or a deliberate prank at worst.
Did anyone tried to double check and make sure that the answer is not a misprint because using logic one cannot reach B as the answer.

In option (B), if we are assuming that prices of gas will go down because demand for gas will decrease, can we not assume that prices of oil will go up if the demand for oil increases? which will break the argument?

Note that to break the argument, you have to break the conclusion. The conclusion is about natural gas prices. Besides, you are given in the argument that the price of oil is likely to remain low and you have to take it to be true.

KarishmaB hello expert, I was torn by B and E, and finally picked E. I think E can also explain why if oil price stays low then gas price stays low too.
Distribution is related to cost, if it is severe, then oil price should increase more than gas price. But passage says oil price still remain low, so gas price should stay even much lower too.
SO could you kindly explain further? Much thanks

Option (E) does not give us the link between oil and gas prices. We can establish the link the way we like from the data given in (E).
What is the meaning of "oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter"?
I would say it means that if winter is severe, sending oil to all locations will become problematic (perhaps because tankers are used) while natural gas could be easily sent (perhaps because underground pipelines are used). Then demand for natural gas may increase (since only gas can be sent) and the price of natural gas may increase (weakening our conclusion).
But, more importantly for this question, note that we are concluding about what will happen if winter is not severe. Are we talking about what will happen if winter is severe? No. Then this option is irrelevant to us.

KarishmaB sorry expert, I was confused by your expectation.
“unless the winter is especially severe, the price of natural gas to industrial customers will remain low”, this means: if the winter is severe, gas price will NOT remain low (will increase). And as you said: if winter is severe, demand for natural gas may increase (since only gas can be sent) and the price of natural gas may increase, so E strengthens the conclusion.
Can you help? Thanks

I think you are getting lost in unnecessary complications.

“unless the winter is especially severe, the price of natural gas will remain low”
means
If winter is not especially severe, the price of natural gas will remain low.

This is the conclusion of the argument. It is a conditional conclusion. To strengthen it, we have to show that if the winter is not especially severe, gas prices will remain low.
What may or may not happen in case of especially severe winters will not help us in any way. We only have to focus on the case of "winters not severe."

(E) Oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter weather than is the distribution of natural gas.

Option (E) talks about what will happen in case of a severe winter. Hence, it is clearly out of scope and we should ignore it completely and move on.
The point I was making above was that even if it were in our scope, we wouldn't know how "changes in distribution" will change the price of either product.