Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades

The author would like to reach the following conclusion: "it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports." Let's consider what we have so far...

• Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter. The word "formerly" tells us that Utrania is no longer a major petroleum exporter.
• Why is Utrania no longer a major petroleum exporter? It seems as though economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields in recent decades.
• As a result, oil exports from Utrania dropped steadily as the old fields became depleted. In other words, they were using up the OLD supplies. Since investment in NEW fields was restricted, the overall supply steadily decreased. This led to a decrease in exports.
• Now things are changing again. Economic conditions are improving in Utrania, and the regulations are now less restrictive. As a result, new fields will be developed rapidly, helping to replenish the decreasing supply.
• But the author is reluctant to conclude that this rapid development will lead to higher oil exports.

So we are looking for something that would explain why EXPORTS might not increase even if new fields (new sources of oil) are rapidly developed. Notice that the author is not saying that the exports will DEFINITELY not increase. Rather, the author is merely suggesting that we don't know yet. In other words, it would be "premature" to conclude that the rapid development will result in higher oil exports.

(And if you prefer your explanations in video form, check out this YouTube CR webinar.)


The author expects the supply of oil to increase but does NOT expect exports to increase... why not? Perhaps if the price of oil were expected to plummet, it would not make economic sense to export the oil. But if the price of oil is expected to remain stable, we would expect an increase in supply to cause an increase in exports. Choice (A) does not explain this apparent discrepancy, so it can be eliminated.


We know that the new fields will help replenish the supply of oil, so why won't Utrania export that oil? Well, perhaps the demand for oil IN Utrania will increase. If the improvement in economic conditions causes a dramatic increase in automobile ownership, then we can expect an increase in domestic demand for oil to fuel those automobiles. So even though Utrania will be PRODUCING more oil, a larger chunk of that production will have to stay in Utrania to meet the increased domestic demand. This explains how supply could increase without an increase in exports, so hang on to choice (B).


It doesn't matter where the investment comes from. If we are rapidly developing new oil fields, we should increase the supply of oil. If we increase the supply of oil, why won't exports also increase? Choice (C) does not address this apparent discrepancy and can be eliminated.


We already know that the new fields will increase the supply of oil. Choice (D) gives us even MORE reason to expect that oil supplies will increase. Not only do we have the oil from the new fields, but we'll also be able to squeeze some more oil out of the "depleted" fields. This further suggests that exports will increase and does not explain the author's conclusion. Eliminate (D).


Choice (E) might be tempting if it said that the new fields are NOT likely to be as productive as those developed when Utrania was a major exporter. If that were the case, we would have to doubt whether the rapid development would lead to a substantial increase in the supply of oil. However, as written, choice (E) simply gives us more reason to think that the new fields SHOULD lead to an increase in oil exports. This does not match the author's conclusion, so (E) can be eliminated.

Choice (B) is the best answer.
_________________

Hi Marcab,

You have raised an interesting point here. Initially, I could not understand why you chose option D but after reading this post, I understand.

Let's understand the last line:

" it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because"

Now, here you say that one thing possible is that " there is an alternate way,apart from new fields, through which export can be increased".

Well, even if there are alternate ways to increase exports, how does it make a conclusion premature that new fields will lead to increased exports.

An Analogy

Sometime analogies can be useful. Let's consider an analogy here:

It would be premature to say that eating one more apple a day will increase my height because I can increase height by drinking milk.

Is this argument correct? No. Why?

Because the guy is not saying that there is no other way to increase your height; He is just saying that eating an extra apple will increase my height.

Similarly, in this case, even if we say that there could be other sources through which higher exports could be achieved, we are not weakening the given argument.

Only way vs one of the ways

However, if the argument had said that

" it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields is the only way to achieve higher oil exports, because"

then we could have said that there are other avenues to increase exports, than only through new fields.

Therefore, option D is not correct.

Weakeners make assumptions

Now, regarding your other query that option B makes some assumptions. Again, a good point.

The idea is that almost all weakeners make some assumptions. There are not many weakeners, if you look at OG, which would conclusively disprove the conclusion just by their own. And in this question, we are looking for a weakener only.

Hope this helps

Feel free to ask in case of further queries.

-Chiranjeev
_________________

Responding to a pm:

You are right. It is an easy B.

Go with the flow of the argument.
The last sentence says that development of new fields may not lead to higher exports because ...
It's a very basic question. Production is increasing but exports may not. Why? Because domestic demand may be higher now. You are looking for an option that says this.
B offers you a possible cause of increase in domestic demand so it logically completes the sentence.
_________________

Hii karishma.
Restating the argument: "it would be premature to conclude that the rapid developemtn of new fields will result in higher oil exports".
Two things are possible
1) there is an alternate way,apart from new fields, through which export can be increased.
2) there is no increase in exports at all.
Both the above options create a doubt that rapid development of new fields lead to higher exports.

Now D creates an alternate source(point 1) without making an assumption, whereas again saying B makes another assumption. Ask yourself, do the cars only run on fuels?

Now someone please let me know how my solution is incorrect.

You need to analyze the argument properly.

Argument: Utrania was a major exporter of oil. Some yrs back, exports dropped because investments in new fields were inhibited and old fields became depleted. Now, new fields will be developed. Still, rapid development of new fields may not result in higher exports because ....

All you are interested in is why development of new fields may not lead to increase in exports. The point is not what may lead to increase in exports. The point is why exports may not increase even though new fields will be developed. Where will the oil from the new fields go? Ofcourse, domestic consumption.

Also, there is no assumption here. Most automobiles run on fuel today. If there is a dramatic increase in the number of automobiles, a big chunk is bound to run on fuel.

It's a simple question. Treat it as such.
_________________

Weakeners make assumptions

Now, regarding your other query that option B makes some assumptions. Again, a good point.

The idea is that almost all weakeners make some assumptions. There are not many weakeners, if you look at OG, which would conclusively disprove the conclusion just by their own. And in this question, we are looking for a weakener only.

Hope this helps

thank you e gmat for deep analysis.

I do not understand the above idea. Pls cite the og questions in which weakeners disprove the conclusion and in which weakener only weaken the conclusion. pls, cite only one question for each case. thank you very much.
I understand that if information shatters an assumption, it disproves the conclusion. if information increases doubt in an assumption, it increase doubt in the conclusion. The first is the destroyer, the second the weakner. both destroyer and weakner are correct answer for weakening question.

is my thinking correct?

Hi Thang.

Please find below an OG question where weakener doesn't disprove the conclusion. Or, in other words, it would require us to make assumptions to disprove the conclusion.

(Posted on according-to-the-tristate-transportation-authority-making-113718.html)
According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line
would increase ridership dramatically. The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five
years by raising automobile tolls on the two high-way bridges along the route the rail line serves. Although the
proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority’s plan for securing the necessary funds should be
rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no
benefit.

1.. Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority’s plan to
finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls?
(A) Before the authority increases tolls on any of the area bridges, it is required by law to hold public hearings at
which objections to the proposed increase can be raised.
(B) Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated
toll-collecting machines.
(C) Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect,
many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase.
(D) When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter
traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.
(E) The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong
opposition to the proposed toll increase.

The asnwer is Option D. One very obvious assumption required in this question is that past trends will be followed in the future too.


And below is the OG question where weakener does shatter the conclusion:
(Posted on unlike-the-wholesale-price-of-raw-wool-the-wholesale-price-93250.html)

Unlike the wholesale price of raw wool, the wholesale price of raw cotton has fallen considerably in the last Year.
Thus, although the retail price of cotton clothing at retail cloting stores has not yet fallen, it will inevitably fall.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

A. The cost of processing raw cotton for cloth has increased during the last Year.
B. The wholesale price is typically higher than that of the same volume of raw cotton.
C. The operating costs of the average retail cloting store have remained constant during the last year.
D. Changes in retail prices always lag behind changes in wholesale prices.
E. The cost of harvesting raw cotton has increased in the last year.

The answer is Option A.

Since, as per the weakener, the cost of processing raw cotton for cloth has increased during the last Year, we cannot say that "retail price of cotton will inevitably fall". It might or it might not fall (depends how much processing costs has increased).

As far as your reasoning goes, it is precisely right. Whether a statement increased doubt or shatters the conclusion, in both the cases, it is a weakener.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Thank you e gmat expert.

pls continue this discussion which is about the behavior of weakener, and, so which is important.

in the first og question, oa D requires an assumption to increase the doubt on the conclusion

in the second og question, oa A dose not requires any assumption to increase the doubt on the conclusion

that is the difference I get from you. Thank you very much.

another question

can you give me an og question, in which the weakener truely shatter the conclusion ? pls,

in the above second og question, oa A dose not shatter. oa A only cast doubt on the conlusion.

Thank you

Hi Thang,

In the second case, the weakener does shatter the conclusion. The conclusion was "retail price of cotton will inevitably fall". Now, if the weakener is inserted, we cannot be sure if the price will fall.

Now, we cannot say that retail price will inevitably fall. The conclusion is not only weakened, it doesn't hold true. It is not inevitable anymore.

Hope I am making sense.

Thanks
Chiranjeev
_________________

In CR questions we deal with real world scenarios. New information will either strengthen or weaken or do nothing to the conclusion. It is very very difficult for the new info to establish something without a doubt because then the new info will need to consider all possible cases. There will always be some assumptions. The new info will change the degree of confidence in our conclusion. It will not establish or refute our conclusion without any doubt.

Let me explain using an example:

Your argument: Mr X was found on the crime scene (I have been watching too much Fox Crime lately!) with a gun in his hand, blood on his clothes and victim on the floor. Mr X must be the killer (your conclusion).

I want to weaken your argument: Mr X was trying to coerce the gun out of the killer's hand. He is not the killer.
(I have successfully cast doubt on your conclusion but there are assumptions here. You can still get back. )

Your argument: But we can say without a doubt that there was no other person in that room during that time. (perhaps there is a single exit/entry point and it was guarded) Now you have strengthened your case and weakened mine but still there are assumptions.

My argument: The victim was trying to kill himself and Mr X was trying to stop him. The victim succeeded in committing suicide. Mr X is innocent.
Now I have weakened your case and strengthened mine.

We can keep at it for a long time and every new piece of info can strengthen/weaken the argument. Every new piece of info does come with assumptions. That is why, criminals are punished when their crime is established without REASONABLE doubt.

Basically, it will be very very difficult to disprove a conclusion. You can generally just weaken it.
_________________

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields. In consequence, Utranian oil exports dropped steadily as old fields became depleted. Utrania's currently improving economic situation, together with less-restrictive regulations, will undoubtedly result in the rapid development of new fields. However, it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because __________.

A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years

B. the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles

C. most of the investment in new oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources

D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted

E. many of the new oil fields in Utrania are likely to be as productive as those that were developed during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter


B. Fact 1: There will be a rapid development of NEW OIL FIELDS.
Fact 2: There will not be higher oil EXPORTS.

The correct answer must explain why MORE OIL will not lead to more oil EXPORTS.

Answer choice B: The improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles.
Thus, the oil extracted from the NEW OIL FIELDS will be used by drivers in Utrania, explaining why there will NOT be an increase in oil EXPORTS.

The correct answer is B.

Answer choice D: New technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted.
This answer choice does not explain why oil recovered from the old fields and extracted from the new fields will not be exported.
Eliminated D.
_________________

generis GMATNinja VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun nightblade354 gmatexam439





Why is it not possible that new automobiles might run on hybrid fuel or electricity?
In that case, the increase in consumption of fuel will have no impact on oil exports
or probably even strengthen the oil exports.
_________________

Premises:
Utrania was an exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields.
So exports dropped steadily as old fields became depleted.
Utrania's economic condition is improving and regulations are less restrictive now so rapid development of new fields will happen

Conclusion:
It would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports ...

because...
- Here we are looking for a premise. Something that will tell us why the author is saying the the new fields may not result in higher oil exports.

What can we expect? Either that the oil will be needed internally so will not be available for export or that there will not be much outside demand for Utrania oil.

(A) the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years.
Doesn't say why export may not happen.

(B) the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranian's who own automobiles.
This tells us that internal consumption may increase. Note that hybrid/electricity operated cars are a small proportion of current sales of automobiles. There is no reason to assume that all automobiles sold will be hybrid/electricity based.

(C) most of the investment in the oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources.
Irrelevant

(D) new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted.
Just goes to say that availability of oil will be more. Doesn't say why export may not happen.

(E) many of the new oil fields in Utrania are likely to be as productive as those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
Again, says that oil availability will be good. Doesn't say why export may not happen.

Answer (B)
_________________

I think this falls into the category of Massively Overthinking Stuff. For starters, this question was probably written a long time ago, before electric and alternative vehicles were common.

More importantly: in order to invalidate (B), you would have to assume that virtually NO automobiles run on oil-based products. Does that seem like a reasonable assumption?

So sure, the question itself is a bit outdated, and would almost certainly not appear in this form on the 2018 edition of the GMAT. But don't waste too much time worrying about it.
_________________

Official Answer:

Argument Construction

Situation A country that had been a major oil exporter has seen its exports decline in recent decades due to economic stagnation, a failure to invest in new fi elds, and the steady depletion of its old fields. But looser regulations and an improving economy will bring rapid development of new oil fields in the country.

Reasoning Which of the options would most logically complete the argument? The passage describes the conditions that led to Utrania’s no longer being a major oil exporter: a lack of investment in new oil fields due to a stagnant economy and restrictive regulations. Th e passage then says that due to changed regulatory and economic conditions, there will now be rapid development of new oil fields. Nonetheless, this might not bring about an increase in Utrania’s oil exports. To logically complete the argument, one must explain how oil exports might not increase even when the condition that led to decreased oil exports has been removed. Suppose there were an increase in domestic oil consumption. A dramatic increase in the rate of car ownership in Utrania could reasonably be expected to signifi cantly increase domestic oil consumption, which could eat up the added oil production from the new fields.

A This choice is incorrect. There is no reason why stable oil prices should prevent Utrania’s oil exports from increasing.
B Correct. An increase in car ownership would increase Utrania’s oil consumption—and this supports the claim that oil exports might not increase.
C If anything, this suggests that oil exports should increase. So it would not be a good choice for completion of the argument.
D The advent of new technology allowing oil to be extracted from fi elds previously thought to be depleted
would mean that there is even more reason to think that Utrania’s oil exports will increase.
E Th is does not help to explain why exports would not increase. On the contrary, it suggests that the new fields will lead to increased exports.

The correct answer is B.
_________________

Answer is (B)

B. the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles

Reasoning: Usually more oil would lead to more export. What if domestic demands increase? This would lead to the extra oil supply be funnel towards domestic markets rather than increased expoerts.

I think this is a good way to look at the answer choices here.

VeritasKarishma,
What does the bold part make role here? I'm totally lost. Has the word "premature" been used as negative word?
Thanks_
_________________

Finally, the bold part help me to eradicate my confusion on the word "premature". Thanks GMATNinja for your nice explanation.
+1 for you.
_________________