From 1998 to 2008, the amount of oil exported from the nation of

I posted this question since I found it ambiguous.
- Answer C says anly about REFINING and not also about DRILLING. Since, from the argument, we know that the job lost is within the oil DRILLING AND REFINING, this answer doesn't address it properly.
- Answer D, in my opinion, has the same problem as the previous, but it refears to only DRILLING.
So I think that if the answer C were to be correct, also the answer D would be correct.

If anyone can explain this doubt I reallly appreciate
Thanks

Here is my explanation. Hope it helps

(a) Because of a slumping local economy, Dettlandia also lost 5,000 service jobs and 7,500 manufacturing jobs. - Sounds good but does not explain discrepancy as question stem says oil industry expanded implying it is not affected by slumping local economy
(b) Several other countries in the region reported similar percentages of jobs lost in the oil industry over the same period. - Ok but it does not explain discrepancy i.e., this choice does not explain why decrease in employment in oil industry even though oil industry expanded
(c) Because of Dettlandia’s overvalued currency, most of the nation’s crude oil is now being refined after it has been exported. - Good. It addresses decrease in employment in refining i.e, oil exploration increased but oil refining business decreased as it is not done locally anymore. May be number of people lost jobs from refining is greater than number of new jobs in exploration.
(d) Technological advancements in oil drilling techniques have allowed for a greater percentage of the world’s oil to be obtained from underneath the ocean floor. - Out of scope. it is not clear whether technological advancements are to increase automation. The technological advancements may be something related to good exploration techniques under sea but may still require lot of labor.
(e) Many former oil employees have found more lucrative work in the Dettlandia’s burgeoning precious metals mining industry. - Out of scope. Not clear whether they looked for jobs in metals industry because they like it more than oil industry or because they were laid off from oil industry.

I did not choose C simply because it only talks about refinement and not about drilling
Otherwise I would have selected that answer.

Hello,
I think the answer should be "C" and not "D" . This is because "C" states that refinement process has been done in some other country and lead to loss of refined jobs. The answer "D" might have been mentioned , as the reason for increase in the production of Oil (stated in the main topic) was due to the new technologies and not to do anything with jobs plunge. My guess

What a stupid question. In the premises it is stated that many jobs were lost in the refinement industry. In answer C it is stated that the oil is now being refined, with directly contradicts the premises but yet somehow answer C is the OA..

There is no a single worse study guide than Veritas. I dont believe that people actually spend money on it.

D is not clear about the jobs that are cut. May be this new technology requires the same number of people to function as that was required for the old technology.

C is also not okay as the argument states that the 8000 jobs that were lost from the oil and refinement industry led to an increased unemployment rate - that means people are jobless. how can people leaving a job and joining another one can cause such a drastic fall of 25%

Source is not ok

hi sayan ,
I am not defending these sources but there is nothing wrong with choice C... ofcourse it does not contradict ...
the question says Dettlandia lost over 8,000 jobs in oil drilling and refinement...
and choice C says.....'(c) Because of Dettlandia’s overvalued currency, most of the nation’s crude oil is now being refined after it has been exported.'
this choice says that the refining is being done after it is exported... that is it is being done in the country which is importing oil from Dettlandia.. so these jobs are being done in other country and not dettlandia as done earliar ... these are the most of the 8000 jobs..

Dear atturhari,
I'm happy to respond. This is a good CR question: Veritas questions are often very good.

So, during this period, oil exports from Livonia increased, which naively would seem to suggest that all oil related jobs would increase. Instead, Livonia "lost over 8,000 jobs in oil drilling and refinement." A paradox. How could oil production go up yet jobs related to oil production go down? Let's look at the answers.

A) Because of a slumping local economy, Livonia also lost 5,000 service jobs and 7,500 manufacturing jobs.
Well, the Livonia economy was weak in other sectors, for whatever reasons, but it seems that oil was a strong sector, because of the high imports, so it doesn't explain the job weaknesses there. This is incorrect.

B) Several other countries in the region reported similar percentages of jobs lost in the oil industry over the same period.
Do we know that these other nations experienced an increase in oil exports? Maybe, maybe not. It is a period of high demand: maybe that means the other nations also produced more, because they were responding to this demand, or maybe all these similar nations stopped producing oil, which created the high demands by severely limiting the supply. This could be relevant, but we are not sure, so we have to reject it.

C) Because of Livonia’s overvalued currency, most of the nation’s crude oil is now being refined after it has been exported.
Aha! Livonia would still have need for jobs in production, but jobs in refining within Livonia would be lost, because all this work is now done elsewhere. This would explain the paradox. This choice is promising.

D) Technological advancements in oil drilling techniques have allowed for a greater percentage of the world’s oil to be obtained from underneath the ocean floor.
This would explain another large supply, which might mean that Livonia would have a competitor, but apparently this supply was not enough to offset Livonia's rise in oil exports. This is incorrect.

E) Many former oil employees have found more lucrative work in the Livonia’s burgeoning precious metals mining industry
That's wonderful for those workers, and it solves their personal problems, but it doesn't solve the problem with the argument: it doesn't resolve the paradox of why they lost their jobs in the oil industry in the first place! This is incorrect.

The strongest answer by far is answer choice (C). This is a great question.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I do not think this is a good question.For answer option C to be correct, how you can assume that refining was done in L in the first place?

most of the nation’s crude oil is now being refined after it has been exported

The "now being refined after it has been exported" indicates that the refining was done earlier within the country.

I first selected "D" on the assumption that technology will reduce the workforce.

Hey! Just read the paragraph again, pay attention to the words in the paragraph --> " Livonia lost over 8,000 jobs in oil drilling and refinement, representing a 25% increase in the nation’s unemployment rate"
This statement says that Livonia's oil companies fired 8000 employees in the department of oil drilling and REFINEMENT. And as a result, the country's unemployment increased, which means that the ones who were fired were Livonia's residents.Connect the two points I've made.Thus, the refinement used to happen in Livonia only.

woah, is it really a 700 level question???
From the options given, none actually made sense but C.
A/B/D/E are all out of scope...

to solve paradox like questions, we can use the "magic formula"

Because answer choice, X is true while Y is true either.

Hi Chetan2u,
Can you kindly explain that how can u discard option D? i found both options C & D seem reasonable.

This question does not make sense for several reasons. One can always conjure an explanation to suit the OA. The question stem clearly states that over 8000 jobs were lost in drilling and refinement . Fair enough ! It could be that 30 percent jobs were lost in drilling while 70 percent were lost in refinement ,It could also be that 20 percent jobs were lost in refinement while 70 percent jobs were lost in drilling . One simply cant assume any. Option C allows us to infer that jobs were lost in the refinement sector but not the drilling sector . As we are not sure which sector had more people employed its difficult to explain the discrepancy in between over 8000 jobs lost and soaring exports.

Still a bit not convinced. Below is my reasoning.

Facts 1. oil export increase 20% ; 2. drilling and refinement jobs deduce by 8,000

C seems to only explain the refinement jobs loss, however, what does it to with explaining the drilling jobs lose?

If the drilling jobs are reducing, why would the crude oil export increase? isn't the crude oil produced by drilling? (sorry zero background on this industry...)

After reading this question, my initial thought was - it must be a technology breakthrough that requires less labor in extracting the same amount of oil than did before.

So, i marked D as my answer.

D says about the world, not the country mentioned in the argument.

Is this an official question??