Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park

		00:00
	GMAT Timer...

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.

VOTE FOR
E. Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people

Hey, I choose A

D is out because the enviromentalists doens'tclaim that
B mispresenting the facts
E, no comment

C vs. A

C isn't stated explicitly

A is clear and active

I vote for B

I think it is C.

NO one for D yet? Variety makes the difference

I think it has to be between A and B. I think they both are very close depending upon how you look at it.

I will go with B.

A) !

IMO...

B) is out b/c the negative aspects do not outweigh the desirable outcome

C) nothing is mentioned about a "greater degree"

I think its C.

Environmentalist agree with the business spokesperson on "So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution." but Environmentalist disagrees that financial benifits can be achieved only by snowmobiles. Financial benifits can be achieved by promoting skiers rathan than snowmobiles.

I`ll take B. This reads like an LSAT CR.

I will go with B as well.

B

[quote="duttsit"]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 environmentalistÂ

why not E?

i want to explain a lil futher why its not B) ! my last post was a lil short...

the question is: how does E respond to S ?

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

S does not mention any negative aspects that outweigh the desirable outcome !

again, the question asks: how does E respond to S ?

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

yes, S says that x leads to y !

E responds and implies that z can lead to y as well !

I do not think E is even close. It is not cleat that the effect that the spoksperson presented--the financial benefits on local population--even reached the local people. The environmentalist changes the course of discussion by saying that the revenue stream is lost since snow enthusiast outsiders do not come. There is no information that the financial effects reach local population. Hhhhhhm!

Is there any OA for this question.

For the record, OA is B, though some of you may not agree

I do not have OE but here are my 2 cents:

A:

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances
desirable outcome: great financial benefit of many local residents
one set of circumstances: brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months

E does not challenge this as she doe not propose/hints any alternate set of circumstances.

A might be more strong if E had responded:
A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate but many local residents are still in great financial position.

Bhai explained very well how E is not correct answer.

you are right ! i dont agree is the source reliable ? or is it the 1000-cr-document ?

Its from a paper test. You can look at more discussion on this at:
http://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=13365