I was going through the explanation and found that I missed something.
I rejected B because proportion of population owning automobile will increase doesn't solidify the idea that new oil field would not overshoot the consumption of oil domestically. It may or may not.
I chose E - many new oil field are likely to be 'as productive as' those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
If that is true the amount of oil produced will be equal to the oil produced when the country was the highest exporter.
This will lead to same quantity of oil production and thus not higher oil exports.
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.)
Quote:
A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years.
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.
Quote:
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.
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).
Quote:
C. most of the investment in the oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources.
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.
Quote:
D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted.
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).
Quote:
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.
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.
close
04 Jan 2019, 16:27
