|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 299
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[0], given: 0
|
Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning [#permalink]
 19 Apr 2010, 11:29
Question Stats:
50% (02:23) correct
50% (01:46) wrong based on 2 sessions
Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the
(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 90
Location: United States
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 5
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
19 Apr 2010, 15:31
I am thinking A. The environmentalist's conclusion is that the oil company's single concern is regarding press/sales, and that there is no room for multiple motives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1568
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
123
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
19 Apr 2010, 20:10
Is OA (C)? Posted from my mobile device 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 132
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
166
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
19 Apr 2010, 22:34
nverma wrote: Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the
(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more
successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills I pinned down to options A&C, i think other options can be discarded easily. here is my take on options A&C: A: this is certainly assumed, we need to focus on evidence of environmentalist's argument, he say "Your real concern is evident in your.. " this means environmentalist assumes that Oil company representative does not have any other "real" concern except what environmentalist says. C: environmentalist is not concerned with profit of the oil company, he mentions this to justify his evidence, moreover environmentalist mentions "level of sales" which is different from profit. IMO A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 220
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 8
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
20 Apr 2010, 06:21
I narrowed it down to A & C Then decided to go with A because option C go with environmentalist's views but it talks about profit not sales. Dont want to assume here Only option left is A What is OA?
_________________
Success is my Destiny
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 299
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
20 Apr 2010, 08:02
The OA is A.
As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.
Can some shed light on the matter...!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 14
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
22 Apr 2010, 14:25
I think it is A.
As for C, first how the company manages the profits I think has nothing to do with the decission made in this particular case. It does not necessarily link the premise to conclusion.
Second, I do not like "always" "never" those extreme words
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 90
Location: United States
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 5
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
22 Apr 2010, 14:46
nverma wrote: The OA is A.
As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.
Can some shed light on the matter...!! The environmentalist’s conclusion is that the oil company has no concern for the environment. “A” says that that the OC has only one concern. The argument already showed that they have a concern for profit/sales, so this leaves no room for a concern for the environment. “C” may support the environmentalist, but does not say that the OC does not have concern for the environment. Just because they like profits, doesn’t mean they don’t have any concern for the environment, or that they cannot change their course. Has to be “A.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 299
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
23 Apr 2010, 01:10
mmphf wrote: nverma wrote: The OA is A.
As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.
Can some shed light on the matter...!! The environmentalist’s conclusion is that the oil company has no concern for the environment. “A” says that that the OC has only one concern. The argument already showed that they have a concern for profit/sales, so this leaves no room for a concern for the environment. “C” may support the environmentalist, but does not say that the OC does not have concern for the environment. Just because they like profits, doesn’t mean they don’t have any concern for the environment, or that they cannot change their course. Has to be “A.” Please help me understand where the above mentioned premise is asserted ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 90
Location: United States
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 5
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
29 Apr 2010, 14:15
nverma wrote: mmphf wrote: nverma wrote: The OA is A.
As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.
Can some shed light on the matter...!! The environmentalist’s conclusion is that the oil company has no concern for the environment. “A” says that that the OC has only one concern. The argument already showed that they have a concern for profit/sales, so this leaves no room for a concern for the environment. “C” may support the environmentalist, but does not say that the OC does not have concern for the environment. Just because they like profits, doesn’t mean they don’t have any concern for the environment, or that they cannot change their course. Has to be “A.” Please help me understand where the above mentioned premise is asserted ? Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment. Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.The Environmentalist's statement says specifically that the oil company's actions show they are concerned with their level of sales. This is not just the environmentalist's opinion; he/she says that the oil company admitted in a press conference how it would be damaging. This concern for their public image, and in turn their level of sales is a fact. The environamentalist is asserting that the oil company's statement that they do show concern for the enviroment, that their only concern is profit/sales. Sorry if that is confusing. Hope it helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 197
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
30
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Oil company representative [#permalink]
30 Apr 2010, 07:09
Flaw was obvious and only A exposes it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Oil company representative
[#permalink]
30 Apr 2010, 07:09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
