Some geologists argue that if oil is as common in unsampled areas of

(A) It is possible to recover the oil contained in unexplored areas of the world
= >

oil is as common in unsampled areas of the world as it is in those already sampled

=> Oil needs to be recovered from these areas, hence A is correct

(B) The consumption rate for oil will not grow rapidly
=> It is stated in the prompt that consumption will increase rapidly but the oil can sustain this growth in consumption

(C) Oil will remain an important energy source for at least 500 years
= > Irrelevant, though I almost selected this answer

(D) The world will achieve and maintain zero population growth
=> Irrelevant Information

(E) New technology will make oil discovery and drilling more feasible than ever before
= > Irrelevant Information

I hope this helps

I also had to eliminat the others to come to A:

(A) It is possible to recover the oil contained in unexplored areas of the world
(B) The consumption rate for oil will not grow rapidly this has been stated
(C) Oil will remain an important energy source for at least 500 years this need not be true, it says at least 5 centuries

(D) The world will achieve and maintain zero population growth this is not needed as acceleration is mentioned already

(E) New technology will make oil discovery and drilling more feasible than ever before
we were never told drilling needs to be more feasible for achieving this

Some geologists argue that if oil is as common in unsampled areas of the world as it is in those already sampled, our current estimate of reserves that exist underground must be multiplied by a factor of 10,000. From this we can conclude that we can meet the oil needs of the entire world for at least five centuries, even assuming that future consumption grows at an accelerating rate.

Type - assumption

(A) It is possible to recover the oil contained in unexplored areas of the world - Correct - If we negate this , then the argument falls apart .
(B) The consumption rate for oil will not grow rapidly - Incorrect - the argument already mentions this explicitly
(C) Oil will remain an important energy source for at least 500 years - Irrelevant
(D) The world will achieve and maintain zero population growth - Irrelevant
(E) New technology will make oil discovery and drilling more feasible than ever before - Out of scope - the argument does claim of about such new tech

Answer A

Here the premise is talking about the unsampled oil that is present in the unexplored areas of the world. The conclusion is talking about its usage for at least 5 centuries. therefore the assumption should be something that would fill this gap of the unexplored areas and the usage and so A is the correct answer .

+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Some geologists argue that if oil is as common in unsampled areas of the world as it is in those already sampled, our current estimate of reserves that exist underground must be multiplied by a factor of 10,000. From this we can conclude that we can meet the oil needs of the entire world for at least five centuries, even assuming that future consumption grows at an accelerating rate.

The argument is that even we can meet the oil needs of the entire world for at least 500 years even when considering an accelerated consumption rate.

This is based on the geologists argument that oil is as common in unsampled areas as in sampled areas.

Assuming the same amount of oil exists in unsampled areas.

A is incorrect because if the oil isn't accessible then it can't be used as a supply at all. If it is accessible then sure, the argument holds.

Some geologists argue that if oil is as common in unsampled areas of the world as it is in those already sampled, our current estimate of reserves that exist underground must be multiplied by a factor of 10,000. From this we can conclude that we can meet the oil needs of the entire world for at least five centuries, even assuming that future consumption grows at an accelerating rate.

Conclusion:
we can meet the oil needs of the entire world for at least five centuries, even assuming that future consumption grows at an accelerating rate.


here the geologist assumes a few things, some of which, he himself has talked about here in the question statement.

1. Oil is as common in unsampled (for the sake of convenience let's call this "unexplored") areas of the world as it is in those already sampled(explored or known etc) now this could have been calculated using a simple metric such as volume of oil per square area or something equally logical
2. In order for us to call this newly explored oil resource an oil reserve it must be accessible to the industry using the extraction methods it has in its arsenal. Here, the author is assuming these unknowns and variables, concluding that the newly sampled oil reserve can last for at least five centuries, etc.
3. What if there is no demand for oil in the world? What if the future oil needs of the world are not calculated well? maybe owing to greenhouse effect and climate consciousness people prefer renewables to conventional fuels such as petroleum. And hence no question of this demand ever getting met by the oil reserves in unsampled areas ..etc

Negation of any of these assumptions breaks the conclusion, assumptions are these must be true statements.
statement A addresses the aspect that deals with the industrial ability to extract the oil found in the newly unsampled areas or unexplored areas etc.
what if we don't have the necessary and efficient technology to extract these resources? here the author assumes that the humans can explore locate drill down and extract etc,

To reach the stated conclusion, the author must assume which of the following?

(A) It is possible to recover the oil contained in unexplored areas of the world
(B) The consumption rate for oil will not grow rapidly
(C) Oil will remain an important energy source for at least 500 years
(D) The world will achieve and maintain zero population growth
(E) New technology will make oil discovery and drilling more feasible than ever before

The question is seeking the assumption gap to get to the conclusion of the argument. The first sentence mentions the unsampled areas could contain the same amount of oil as sampled areas, this statement feels very important in the argument already. The conclusion then states the oil needs based on that previous sentence could keep the world supplied for 500 years even at the current accelerated growth rate.

B, C, and D all rely on the conclusion instead of the assumption. Eliminate these.

E mentions new technology, but there is no mention in the paragraph to define an assumption off of.

A points to the first sentence information we mentioned as important, "if oil is as common in unsampled areas of the world as it is in those already sampled" then the argument is assuming the unsampled areas contain about the same amount of accessible oil as the sampled areas. Correct!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.