Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 19 Dec 2014, 16:52

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Aug 2012
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 11 Dec 2012, 11:24
B
Here is why i think it should be B
A)Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances - no mention anywhere
B)Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.- As per the businessman the desirable outcome = Financial benefits to the locals- The Environmentalist proves his assumption wrong by stating that the pollution & noise is keeping the skiers away and this proves the assumption wrong- hence this can be correct
C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means- not relevant no mention anywhere , cannot be inferred from the para
d)Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position... - no reference in the para,again not a match
E)Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people - it at all the Environmenatlist is stating it is not beneficial- due to noise pollution and no skiers which in a way will effect the business of local people.

so B comes closest to be the rght answer. it did take me 3,20 mins to guess this one..may not have got this one right under the time constraint
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 291

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2013, 23:47
duttsit wrote:
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.
B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means.
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.
E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people.





OA is A. Kindly refrain from posting incorrect OAs. http://www.beatthegmat.com/the-use-of-s ... 54112.html
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 214
GPA: 3.46
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 172

Premium Member
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 25 Nov 2013, 00:51
This is what Ron himself replied to this question.

none of the answers is perfect, although choice (a) is the one that comes closest. it's written in a way that is a little bit too extreme -- "only one set of circumstances" isn't fully justified; a better answer could be something along the lines of “pointing out a consideration that the spokesperson has failed to consider".

Seems like a bad question.

mohnish104 wrote:
duttsit wrote:
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.
B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means.
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.
E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people.





OA is A. Kindly refrain from posting incorrect OAs. http://www.beatthegmat.com/the-use-of-s ... 54112.html
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2013
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 04 Dec 2013, 20:39
Well even I had initially selected Option A, but here's why Option B is the right choice.

Look at the following words in the Environmentalist's Second Statement
1. A GREAT MANY ARE
2.NOW KEPT from Visiting.

What E says through the above 2 points is that because of Snowmobiling, greater no of skiers and nature lovers are kept away from visiting the place& the revenue from these ppl will be greater than that provided by snowmobilers. Moreover, this revenue is got without pollution.

Hence B
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Tomorrow will be a new day...
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 965
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 69

Kudos [?]: 497 [0], given: 215

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2014, 23:21
What is the assumption spoke person is making, I think spokesperson is presenting fact... or making a statement.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: A true ambitious aspirant for the Top B-Schools!!
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 62
GMAT 1: 720 (Q 50, V 38)
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 203

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 08 Dec 2014, 01:48
I agree with christoph and IMO option A is more pertinent here as compared with B because in B the words "outweighed by" aren't correct and imply as if the pollution (negative aspect) is dominating over or surpassing the financial benefits (desirable outcome) WHEREAS the correct lingo should have mentioned that the pollution (negative aspect) OUTWEIGHS the financial benefits (desirable outcome) obtained by using the snowmobiles .Moreover, the environmentalist argues that the financial benefits as such can be obtained ( although degree of the benefit isn't known) through inviting the skiers by reducing the sound and noise pollution by use of snowmobiles. Other members, please provide your opinions regarding this.
_________________

The Mind is everything . What you think you become. - Lord Buddha

Consider giving KUDOS if you appreciate my post !!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 68
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 24

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 08 Dec 2014, 10:29
Vinitkhicha1111 wrote:
I agree with christoph and IMO option A is more pertinent here as compared with B because in B the words "outweighed by" aren't correct and imply as if the pollution (negative aspect) is dominating over or surpassing the financial benefits (desirable outcome) WHEREAS the correct lingo should have mentioned that the pollution (negative aspect) OUTWEIGHS the financial benefits (desirable outcome) obtained by using the snowmobiles .Moreover, the environmentalist argues that the financial benefits as such can be obtained ( although degree of the benefit isn't known) through inviting the skiers by reducing the sound and noise pollution by use of snowmobiles. Other members, please provide your opinions regarding this.


OA is definitely B.

Reading your post, I think you have it backwards. Let's break down the argument, B, and then A (and then a note on C):

1. The environmentalist is saying that the snowmobiles cause pollution.
2. The business spokesperson says that we should put up with the pollution because it generates revenue. Basically, that the benefits of the revenue outweigh the negatives of the pollution.
3. The environmentalist responds by pointing out that the pollution also causes a decrease in a different revenue stream, the one from the skiers.

Basically, the environmentalist is pointing out another consideration that argues against the business spokesperson's idea. Specifically, the environmentalist is saying that the snowmobile revenue does not overcome the negatives of the pollution because it is not just snowmobile revenue v. pollution, but rather snowmobile revenue v. both pollution and skier revenue. This doesn't necessarily mean that the skier revenue is definitely more than the snowmobile revenue (the environmentalist could believe it to be or believe it not to be); instead, it means that the difference between the snowmobile revenue and the skier revenue (if any) is not more than the negatives of the pollution. Thus, when we are asked how the environmentalist responds, we need an answer that says that the environmentalist argues against the idea that the negatives of pollution are outweighed by the benefits of the revenue, not one that says that the skier revenue is more than the snowmobile revenue - the more/outweigh issue in the argument is really about money v. pollution (this is important for answer C). One thing to notice about A and B is that they start with "challenging an assumption that", meaning that the remainder of those answers should match the business spokesperson's assumption (that the snowmobile revenue is the best option) since that is what the environmentalist challenges.

B: "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome"

This answer tells us that the environmentalist is challenging the business spokesperson's assumption that a certain desirable outcome (maybe stopping the pollution) is outweighed by (not as good as) negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (maybe the lost snowmobile revenue). This fits exactly what we want because the environmentalist is saying that the business spokesperson is wrong for thinking that we shouldn't clean up pollution because of the money. I think you flipped this instead. Maybe you focused on the "desirable outcome" as instead being the snowmobile revenue? Maybe you missed the "challenging" word at the beginning and thought that it meant that the environmentalist believes in that assumption? Be careful when you read that you have everything in the right order. Slowing down and rechecking your thoughts can often lead to clarity.

A: "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"

What is the "desirable outcome" here? It definitely cannot be stopping the pollution because we are not talking about accomplishing stopping the pollution in "other" ways. Instead, the desirable outcome here would have to be keeping the snowmobile revenue (so this would have to be a different desirable outcome from the one in B). Thus, this answer would have to be saying that the environmentalist is arguing against the idea that the snowmobile revenue can come from only one set of circumstances.

That we are talking about other sources of revenue makes this very attractive, but the word "only" is extremely important here ("only" isn't always wrong, but you should always evaluate how it affects things!). With "only", this answer tells us that the environmentalist is saying that business spokesperson wrongly thinks that the snowmobile revenue cannot come from other sources. This doesn't match because, while the environmentalist is telling us that revenue can come from other sources, the business spokesperson never says that we cannot get money from other sources. This is the key here. It is entirely consistent with the business spokesperson's position that the business spokesperson thinks that there are other ways to make money (maybe a coffee stand?). So, the environmentalist is not arguing against the snowmobile revenue being the "only" way to achieve that outcome; instead, the environmentalist is telling us that the business spokesperson is wrong because the skier revenue would be lost too, so all of a sudden maybe the negative aspects of banning snowmobiles (lost revenue) isn't outweighing the pollution - maybe instead the skier revenue makes it a closer situation and the pollution is bad enough to lose a small amount of money. Thus the argument is more about which option is better, not whether something is the only option, meaning that A cannot be correct.

C: "Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means."

This sounds really close, because the environmentalist seems to suggest that there is a benefit that the spokesperson desires (snowmobile revenue) that we could get "in greater degree by a different means" (from the skiers), but it doesn't match as well for a few reasons. First, "maintaining" is a little too strong here. It suggests that the speaker has already said that this is true. If I say A is true and you say B is true and then I say A is still true, then I maintained my position. Instead, the environmentalist never began by discussing the financial benefits and so cannot "maintain" that position. Much more importantly, the author never actually says that we can get more money from skiers, it is only suggested. The problem with that is it is entirely possible and consistent with the argument that the lost snowmobile revenue (say $10,000) is more than the lost skier revenue (say $9,000) and that the difference ($1,000) is not enough to justify putting up with the pollution. Thus, the environmentalist doesn't have to believe that the monetary benefit could be achieved in a greater degree (more money) by another means (skier revenue); instead, the environmentalist is saying that the skier revenue makes it okay to stop the pollution and lose the snowmobile revenue. This is different than B because B just says that one situation is outweighed by another, while C says that a specific benefit must be able to be achieved to a greater extent through another means and we don't know that that is true.

fguardini1, Aristocrat, and nerd got pretty close to explaining it correctly a few posts above - I just wanted to expound to, hopefully, make it very clear
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5031
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1208

Kudos [?]: 5816 [0], given: 168

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 08 Dec 2014, 22:32
Expert's post
Vinitkhicha1111 wrote:
I agree with christoph and IMO option A is more pertinent here as compared with B because in B the words "outweighed by" aren't correct and imply as if the pollution (negative aspect) is dominating over or surpassing the financial benefits (desirable outcome) WHEREAS the correct lingo should have mentioned that the pollution (negative aspect) OUTWEIGHS the financial benefits (desirable outcome) obtained by using the snowmobiles .Moreover, the environmentalist argues that the financial benefits as such can be obtained ( although degree of the benefit isn't known) through inviting the skiers by reducing the sound and noise pollution by use of snowmobiles. Other members, please provide your opinions regarding this.



Responding to a pm:

The correct option here is (B) and here is why:

Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles because they create air pollution

Business guy: Snowmobiling brings tourists and hence money. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: Snowmobiles keep skiers away.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"
No. The business guy does not say that only snowmobiling can bring in tourists and hence money. He says that snowmobiling brings in tourists and hence money and so is good. He does not say that allowing snowmobiles is the only circumstance that can lead to money.
Hence, incorrect.

B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome."
What is "certain desirable outcome"? Getting tourists
What are "negative aspects"? Pollution and more to the point, effect of pollution i.e. keeping skiers away
How is the outcome produced? By allowing snowmobiles

In all, the env challenges the assumption that getting tourists outweighs effects of pollution. The business guy assumes that getting tourists monetarily outweighs the effects of pollution so we should put up with pollution. The env challenges it by saying that effects of pollution include negative monetary effects (skiers do not come) so how can you say that getting tourists outweighs the problems associated with pollution.

This is correct.

Answer (B)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: A true ambitious aspirant for the Top B-Schools!!
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 62
GMAT 1: 720 (Q 50, V 38)
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 203

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 09 Dec 2014, 00:10
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Vinitkhicha1111 wrote:
I agree with christoph and IMO option A is more pertinent here as compared with B because in B the words "outweighed by" aren't correct and imply as if the pollution (negative aspect) is dominating over or surpassing the financial benefits (desirable outcome) WHEREAS the correct lingo should have mentioned that the pollution (negative aspect) OUTWEIGHS the financial benefits (desirable outcome) obtained by using the snowmobiles .Moreover, the environmentalist argues that the financial benefits as such can be obtained ( although degree of the benefit isn't known) through inviting the skiers by reducing the sound and noise pollution by use of snowmobiles. Other members, please provide your opinions regarding this.



Responding to a pm:

The correct option here is (B) and here is why:

Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles because they create air pollution

Business guy: Snowmobiling brings tourists and hence money. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: Snowmobiles keep skiers away.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"
No. The business guy does not say that only snowmobiling can bring in tourists and hence money. He says that snowmobiling brings in tourists and hence money and so is good. He does not say that allowing snowmobiles is the only circumstance that can lead to money.
Hence, incorrect.

B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome."
What is "certain desirable outcome"? Getting tourists
What are "negative aspects"? Pollution and more to the point, effect of pollution i.e. keeping skiers away
How is the outcome produced? By allowing snowmobiles

In all, the env challenges the assumption that getting tourists outweighs effects of pollution. The business guy assumes that getting tourists monetarily outweighs the effects of pollution so we should put up with pollution. The env challenges it by saying that effects of pollution include negative monetary effects (skiers do not come) so how can you say that getting tourists outweighs the problems associated with pollution.

This is correct.

Answer (B)


YES I agree with your solution but you have used the same point in your solution of desirable outcome OUTWEIGHS the negative effects and not that THE DESIRABLE OUTCOME is OUTWEIGHED by pollution. My concern was the way in which the Option B has been written and not with its structure. If I am not wrong..??
_________________

The Mind is everything . What you think you become. - Lord Buddha

Consider giving KUDOS if you appreciate my post !!

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5031
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1208

Kudos [?]: 5816 [0], given: 168

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2014, 20:59
Expert's post
Vinitkhicha1111 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Vinitkhicha1111 wrote:
I agree with christoph and IMO option A is more pertinent here as compared with B because in B the words "outweighed by" aren't correct and imply as if the pollution (negative aspect) is dominating over or surpassing the financial benefits (desirable outcome) WHEREAS the correct lingo should have mentioned that the pollution (negative aspect) OUTWEIGHS the financial benefits (desirable outcome) obtained by using the snowmobiles .Moreover, the environmentalist argues that the financial benefits as such can be obtained ( although degree of the benefit isn't known) through inviting the skiers by reducing the sound and noise pollution by use of snowmobiles. Other members, please provide your opinions regarding this.



Responding to a pm:

The correct option here is (B) and here is why:

Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles because they create air pollution

Business guy: Snowmobiling brings tourists and hence money. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: Snowmobiles keep skiers away.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"
No. The business guy does not say that only snowmobiling can bring in tourists and hence money. He says that snowmobiling brings in tourists and hence money and so is good. He does not say that allowing snowmobiles is the only circumstance that can lead to money.
Hence, incorrect.

B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome."
What is "certain desirable outcome"? Getting tourists
What are "negative aspects"? Pollution and more to the point, effect of pollution i.e. keeping skiers away
How is the outcome produced? By allowing snowmobiles

In all, the env challenges the assumption that getting tourists outweighs effects of pollution. The business guy assumes that getting tourists monetarily outweighs the effects of pollution so we should put up with pollution. The env challenges it by saying that effects of pollution include negative monetary effects (skiers do not come) so how can you say that getting tourists outweighs the problems associated with pollution.

This is correct.

Answer (B)


YES I agree with your solution but you have used the same point in your solution of desirable outcome OUTWEIGHS the negative effects and not that THE DESIRABLE OUTCOME is OUTWEIGHED by pollution. My concern was the way in which the Option B has been written and not with its structure. If I am not wrong..??


You have a point Vinit. It certainly seems to be an error in the question since the intent is certainly clear. The assumption is that the positive outweighs the negative, not that the positive is outweighed by the negative. It becomes nonsensical if we say that the positive is outweighed by the negative i.e. the negative is stronger - whereas the business rep's argument is opposite. Hence (B) should be framed as desirable outcomes outweighs the negative effects. I suggest you move on.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park   [#permalink] 10 Dec 2014, 20:59
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville souvik101990 0 17 Dec 2014, 05:12
5 Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville bakfed 13 11 Apr 2010, 22:44
Environmentalists computer-bot 5 17 Sep 2007, 19:41
environmentalists praveen_rao7 4 05 Mar 2005, 20:53
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles pb_india 19 19 Jan 2005, 18:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 50 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.