Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 22 Sep 2014, 06:54

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1377
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 182 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User Reviews Badge
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2008, 09:33
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (02:05) correct 35% (01:22) wrong based on 548 sessions
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 267
Location: nj
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2008, 10:28
IMO A

the argument talks about changing the leadership to private groups. so if old leaders come take over the leadership of private groups nothing would change eventually as far as conservative objectives are concerned.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 658
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 7

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2008, 10:29
goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that
conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were
put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the
government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against
the suggestion above?

A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership.

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives.

C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public.

D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas.

E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources.


IMO E
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 5

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2008, 11:27
I choose A).
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 186
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2008, 11:38
IMO B.

The main point of the argument is that Conversational objectives will be better achieved it it is given to private operators.
B states that private owners may not always adopt the best way of achieving Conversational objectives which contradicts the main point of the argument.


OA Please.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1377
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 182 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User Reviews Badge
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2008, 17:09
grepro wrote:
IMO B.

The main point of the argument is that Conversational objectives will be better achieved it it is given to private operators.
B states that private owners may not always adopt the best way of achieving Conversational objectives which contradicts the main point of the argument.


OA Please.


I chose B too. But thats not the OA.
1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1406
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 117 [1] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2008, 21:59
1
This post received
KUDOS
goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that
conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were
put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the
government.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against
the suggestion above?

A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they wannt to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives. -> this says private players dont agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE

C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public. ->irrelevant here

D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas. -> irrelevant

E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources.
-> too specific examples -> this is outside scope of argument since giving ownership to private players does not lead to extinction of condor but other reasons could also lead to.ELIMINATE


IMO (A)
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1550
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 208 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 19 Jul 2008, 04:44
goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that
conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were
put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the
government.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against
the suggestion above?

A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership.

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives.

C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public.

D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas.

E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources.



I choose C as my answer. If the private enterprise will need financial contributions from the general public, the the private enterprise will be influenced by the public and will not be applying its typical private enterprise approach.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1377
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 182 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User Reviews Badge
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 19 Jul 2008, 08:49
spriya wrote:
goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that
conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were
put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the
government.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against
the suggestion above?

A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they wannt to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives. -> this says private players dont agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE

C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public. ->irrelevant here

D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas. -> irrelevant

E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources.
-> too specific examples -> this is outside scope of argument since giving ownership to private players does not lead to extinction of condor but other reasons could also lead to.ELIMINATE


IMO (A)


The explanation you have given is same as given in OG. But I still do'nt understand why A is better than B.
Both in A and B, it is indicated that private parties cannot meet the conservation goals. To discard B and choose A we will have to stretch the argument.
Anyways OA is A.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1377
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 182 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User Reviews Badge
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 19 Jul 2008, 08:50
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1406
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 19 Jul 2008, 09:55
goalsnr wrote:
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?


A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they want to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. -> this says private players don't agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE

In my opinion (B) is quite a generic condition and does not clearly pose a threat to conservation of natural resources.
But consider (A) those wiling to exploit natural resouces will lead the firms.Hence the main purpose of private take over is flawed.(A) directly attacks the argument .Again negate the same it will support the argument.thanks for the OA.
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2010
Posts: 165
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 6

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 27 Aug 2010, 06:40
Conclusion : private groups will manage parks better.
Premise : conservation objectives will be taken care better by them if they are put in charge of operating and financing the parks.

So the answer choice should tell us that private groups will not achieve their goal. Most correct answer will be against the premise is that they will not able to conserve the park resources but worsen them. So A.


(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.

(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.

This answer tells us groups would not do their job properly. But not a strong point like choice A which tells that the private group will abandon all restrictions against exploitation of naturalresources. i.e. it would not conserve but support in exploitation.

(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.

This is not relevant as it talks about extension of park.

(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.

Not relevant as it talks about competition and control among private groups. Not directly talking about conservation objective

(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources

It talks about some endangered species might die even though private groups put in their efforts. Some positive note on private group. So not the answer.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 46
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 27 Aug 2010, 21:09
Its a clear A
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 334
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 7

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 28 Aug 2010, 07:01
A IMO
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 57
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 10

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 30 Aug 2010, 01:44
goalsnr wrote:
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?


Hi Goalsnr,

I think you can rule B out for strong wording:

Premise:
"conservation objectives would in general be better served... "

Answer B:
B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives


Hope it helps!

Cheers,
André
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 47
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 30 Aug 2010, 17:37
spriya wrote:
goalsnr wrote:
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?


A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they want to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. -> this says private players don't agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE

In my opinion (B) is quite a generic condition and does not clearly pose a threat to conservation of natural resources.
But consider (A) those wiling to exploit natural resouces will lead the firms.Hence the main purpose of private take over is flawed.(A) directly attacks the argument .Again negate the same it will support the argument.thanks for the OA.


Good explanation. Thanks!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 158
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 15

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 31 Aug 2010, 13:59
IMO A
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 191
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 9

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 01 Sep 2010, 01:20
A eazy
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Feb 2011
Posts: 80
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 01 Sep 2011, 09:24
A is the answer
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 227
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 38

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink] New post 01 Sep 2011, 11:19
Couldn't comprehend. Tough one!
_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MGMAT 6 650 (51,31) on 31/8/11
MGMAT 1 670 (48,33) on 04/9/11
MGMAT 2 670 (47,34) on 07/9/11
MGMAT 3 680 (47,35) on 18/9/11
GMAT Prep1 680 ( 50, 31) on 10/11/11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CR notes
http://gmatclub.com/forum/massive-collection-of-verbal-questions-sc-rc-and-cr-106195.html#p832142
http://gmatclub.com/forum/1001-ds-questions-file-106193.html#p832133
http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-critical-reasoning-collection-106783.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html?hilit=chineseburned

Re: CR - enterprises   [#permalink] 01 Sep 2011, 11:19
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 There is strong lobbying for privatization of governmental Runner2 3 15 Apr 2012, 06:00
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private bholakc 10 02 Sep 2011, 06:33
2 Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private UtterNonsense 8 26 Jul 2011, 11:08
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private Ravshonbek 10 10 Aug 2007, 08:41
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private vineetgupta 14 26 Nov 2006, 01:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 34 posts ] 



cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.