Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil

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

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.

Tough one but will go with option B.

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome (great financial benefit from Snowmobiling) is outweighed by negative aspects (noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate keep many cross-country skiers away from the town) associated with producing that outcome.

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. - there is no desired outcome

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

C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means. there are no benefits spoken about

D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it. no misrepresentation at all

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

Hence B


Posted from my mobile device

A very good question, and certainly hard one to solve under 3 minutes...
Dear GMATNinja / GMATNinjaTwo Any tips how to save time in such questions?

Sadly, there aren't really any magic bullets that will make you faster at CR, other than just getting better at reading passages in general -- and making sure that you're being efficient in your approach to questions.

This article doesn't directly address speed all that much, but it'll give you an idea of how to think optimally about CR, and start to build some good habits: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43170.html. In particular, some people end up answering questions more slowly when they fail to invest enough time in the passages themselves. If you move on to the answer choices before you've fully understood the passage itself, you'll waste a ton of time going back and forth between the answer choices and the passage.

I'm not sure whether that applies to you, but it's a problem that we see fairly often. And if you try to "save time" by reading the passage faster, it can work against you: you'll make more errors, and you'll waste time spinning your wheels on the answer choices.

And if you're simply cursed with a slow reading speed, CR can be really tough, but you'll get stronger at reading them with enough practice.

Sorry that I can't offer anything more concrete to speed you up! It's one of the annoying things about the GMAT: CR and RC just don't give us a lot of room for shortcuts, sadly.

Oh, and one other thing I should have said, DAakash7: this particular passage is pretty tough, so there's no shame in taking some extra time on it.

Taking the question and answer choices verbatim, I would choose A. (Others have commented on why C, D and E can be eliminated so I will focus on why option B can be eliminated.)

If B is indeed the correct answer as per an official solution, then I think that answer choice B may have been transcribed incorrectly from source material.

Here's why I think that B can be eliminated, if we take the answer choices from the original post verbatim. Given the question is focused on how the environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson, we can deduce that the "assumption" that is referenced in option B refers to that made by the business spokesperson. However, in his/her statement, the business spokesperson never makes the assumption that a "certain desirable outcome" (i.e., financial benefit) is outweighed by "negative aspects" (i.e., pollution). In fact, the business person claims the opposite to be true - he believes that the desirable outcome of financial benefit outweighs the negative aspects of pollution.

Yes, the business person does claim that the desirable outcome of financial benefit outweighs the negative outcome of higher air pollution. But there are two potential desirable outcomes: financial benefits and LOWER pollution levels.

The business spokesperson would agree that lowering pollution is a desirable outcome. But the spokesperson believes that the benefit of lowering pollution is outweighed by the financial cost of lowering pollution. In other words, the business person believes that lowering pollution (i.e. a "certain desirable outcome") is outweighed by the loss of financial benefit (i.e. the negative aspects associated with lowering pollution). This fits perfectly with choice (B).

As for (A), as described in the original explanation,


First, what are the "desirable outcomes" referenced in this passage? 1) financial benefit to local residents and 2) less air pollution. Where do those "desirable outcomes" come from? 1) from bringing in out-of-towners (ie snowmobilers or cross-country skiers) and 2) from banning snowmobiling.

Notice that the spokesperson's argument does not require the assumption that either desirable outcome comes from only one set of circumstances. The spokesperson simply notes that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners which creates a financial benefit, he/she does not imply that this is the only way to achieve that benefit. The environmentalist does not challenge this assumption because the spokesperson never makes that assumption. Choice (A) can be eliminated.

Choice (B) is the best answer. I hope that helps! And more importantly: welcome to GMAT Club!!!

The guy may mean that thought there are several other ways of economic benefit but motorballing may be the major and thus its absence can cause economic concerns.
And when the environmentalist says that he disagrees and points out another revenue stream, he is not saying that the other guy falsely assumed that it's only motoballing that can bring revenue He is actually saying that the negative aspect of banning (absence of motor-balling) wouldn't outweigh the desired outcome as then another revenue stream opens up and in doing so he challenges the same assumption given in option (B)

GMATNINJA let me know if i am along the right line of thinking.

Thanks ash091109 for your reply!

I think you are on the right track when you wrote this: "He is actually saying that the negative aspect of banning (absence of motor-balling) wouldn't outweigh the desired outcome as then another revenue stream opens up and in doing so he challenges the same assumption given in option (B)..."

The desired outcome in this case is less air pollution. In order to achieve that outcome, the town would have to ban snowmobiling. The negative aspect of this ban would be a loss of great financial benefit to the locals. According to the business spokesperson, having less air pollution (desired outcome) is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (loss of financial benefit).

The environmentalist challenges this assumption. The financial loss would not be so great because, if snowmobiling is banned, there would be additional revenue from the cross-country skiers.

I hope this helps!

Hi AndrewN

I chose E and I am not sure how it is incorrect. I think the key to analyze E is to pin point exactly what the environmentalist disagrees when he says "I disagree". Is it the fact that economics dictate ? Or is it the spokesperson's position that snowboarding brings a lot of tourists ? I can't tell.

If he is disagreeing to the fact that economics dictate that the pollution has to be put up with, wouldn't that make E correct ?

Hello, Namangupta1997. I agree that we are forced to place I disagree in a larger context. But the passage takes care of that for us, using a colon to introduce an explanation, as in, I disagree because... Look at what follows that colon and ask yourself what the information pertains to, that, to use your own line of reasoning, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution, or that {s}nowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months.


Now, it should be clear that there is no disagreement with the latter. The environmentalist does not dispute the claim that many people visit Milville to snowmobile, only drawing attention to the fact that another group of people, cross-country skiers, does not visit in great numbers. We can only reasonably interpret the objection as one going against the former claim. Does answer choice (E) address this interpretation?


The benefit we see in the passage is the financial gain to many local residents by allowing snowmobilers access in winter months. The environmentalist seems more concerned with the noise and pollution than with any financial benefits to the townspeople. In fact, there is no mention of any benefits at all in the response quoted above. Simply put, we cannot get behind (E) as the answer we seek.

Perhaps that option makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Hi AndrewN. Thanks for the explanation and clearing up the "I disagree" part.

Reading your explanation, another thing comes to mind though. Please correct me if I am wrong. Even if, for a moment, we ignore what exactly is the environmentalist is disagreeing to, we would have to stretch the logic too far to conclude that he is indeed "denying the benefits". As you said, he is more concerned with the noise and pollution, we don't have a solid reason to identify any attack he throws at the supposed benefits reaped by the townspeople.

Yes, I agree. It is hard to say that the environmentalist is denying the benefits to the townspeople when the response provided goes in a different direction altogether, focusing on a different group and on environmental problems. Our goal is not, as you put it, to stretch the logic, and we do indeed need to have a solid reason to get behind an answer. Any way you look at (E), it comes up short, so you have to look elsewhere for a reasonable, more fitting alternative.

- Andrew