It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 04:36

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: Darden Class of 2013
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 1834

Kudos [?]: 398 [2], given: 37

Schools: University of Virginia
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2010, 23:44
2
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (01:18) correct 28% (01:21) wrong based on 273 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Last edited by Vyshak on 16 Jun 2016, 06:32, edited 1 time in total.
Updated OA

Kudos [?]: 398 [2], given: 37

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2010, 00:37
bakfed wrote:
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A

For me the contenders were A and B.

Why not B: "Not all" of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.>> let say 10 percent people were from "outside the town" or let say 80 percent of the people were out of the town. Might only one person is coming from "out of town"...!!!!. It only make economic sense if you have large number of "out of town" guys coming to the town.

Why A: It just say that "Most" of cross country skiers do not come to Milville because of pollution>>> It directly damage the economic position due to amount of pollution...Milville is definitely missing some financial boost.

Hope it helps..

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 0

Retired Moderator
Status: Darden Class of 2013
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 1834

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 37

Schools: University of Virginia
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2010, 08:30
nverma wrote:
bakfed wrote:
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A

For me the contenders were A and B.

Why not B: "Not all" of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.>> let say 10 percent people were from "outside the town" or let say 80 percent of the people were out of the town. Might only one person is coming from "out of town"...!!!!. It only make economic sense if you have large number of "out of town" guys coming to the town.

Why A: It just say that "Most" of cross country skiers do not come to Milville because of pollution>>> It directly damage the economic position due to amount of pollution...Milville is definitely missing some financial boost.

Hope it helps..

The contenders for me were A and B as well; however, I fail to see how (A) serves a better purpose. I agree that (A) is a good choice, but I can't fully understand why (B) can't be the reason either. (A) simply talks about how the skiers don't come due to pollution, but there's still additional money made with the snowmobiles. How does that reject the spokesperson's message?
_________________

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 37

Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 195

Kudos [?]: 112 [2], given: 12

Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2010, 09:49
2
KUDOS
A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
>> This statement specifies that the number of people who go for snowmobiling is reduced.
So it is a counter to the spokesperson's statement "basic economics for us to put up with the pollution."
=>Pollution will reduce the basic economics if people of keeping out of snowmobiling because of pollution.

B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
>>This statement looks like a good option.But when you check the 'Not all' part, it shows though there could be less number of people from out of town, there are more number of people with in twon. It does not show the significant reduction in people who come for snowmobiling and so it will not counter the spokesperson's argument on money.

So A is the correct candidate.
_________________

+1Kudos, if this helps

Kudos [?]: 112 [2], given: 12

Retired Moderator
Status: Darden Class of 2013
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 1834

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 37

Schools: University of Virginia
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2010, 11:19
A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
>> This statement specifies that the number of people who go for snowmobiling is reduced.
So it is a counter to the spokesperson's statement "basic economics for us to put up with the pollution."
=>Pollution will reduce the basic economics if people of keeping out of snowmobiling because of pollution.

B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
>>This statement looks like a good option.But when you check the 'Not all' part, it shows though there could be less number of people from out of town, there are more number of people with in twon. It does not show the significant reduction in people who come for snowmobiling and so it will not counter the spokesperson's argument on money.

So A is the correct candidate.

yes, this helps; thanks a lot.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 37

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1469

Kudos [?]: 801 [0], given: 6

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2010, 12:12
A is good in the lot.

Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

Kudos [?]: 801 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 13

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2010, 18:44
I couldnt quite understand the meaning of the question 'counter the business'..

what does this counter mean? is it weaken?

thanks

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 13

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2010, 22:43
nverma wrote:
bakfed wrote:
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A

For me the contenders were A and B.

Why not B: "Not all" of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.>> let say 10 percent people were from "outside the town" or let say 80 percent of the people were out of the town. Might only one person is coming from "out of town"...!!!!. It only make economic sense if you have large number of "out of town" guys coming to the town.

Why A: It just say that "Most" of cross country skiers do not come to Milville because of pollution>>> It directly damage the economic position due to amount of pollution...Milville is definitely missing some financial boost.

Hope it helps..

is there any big difference between saying "not all of the people" and "a great many cross country skiers..." besides --- isn't cross country skiers a very specific set of people where as "out-of-towners" could be any kind of people interested in pursuing snow-mobiling .... not necessarily "cross country skiers".

in my reasoning the basic argument was that because people come from outside - it generates revenue and hence snowmobiling is good. The environmentalist says it shoudl be banned because it creates pollution. If it can be shown that pollution can be controlled and still the town can make money - something which D does - would that not be appropriate?

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 73

Kudos [?]: 197 [2], given: 2

Location: Toronto
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2010, 01:16
2
KUDOS
[quote2gmatjp]what does this counter mean? is it weaken?[/quote2]

Essentially, yes. "Counter" = "go against" = "weaken".

***

We need a choice that counters the business spokesperson's rebuttal (that it is "basic economics to put up with the pollution".)

Choice A tells us that the town is losing money because of the snowmobiler's pollution. (Reduced visitors = lost money). So, if the town is losing money because of the pollution, this attacks the business spokesperson's claim that putting up with the pollution is economical. Thus, choice A is correct.

***

[quote2dwivedys]is there any big difference between saying "not all of the people" and "a great many cross country skiers..."[/quote2]

There is a difference between "a great many" and "not all". "a great many" implies an appreciable and significant quantity. But with "not all", a speaker is conveying something else--trying to draw attention away from that quality. If I say "a great many Torontonians are nice", clearly my intention is to say something good about Torontonians. Now, if I say "not all Torontonians are nice", clearly my intention is different. In the case of choice B, "not all" can mean as few as "one", or up to 99%. If it was just one, there is little impact on the argument while if it is 99%, there is a much bigger impact on the argument. Because we don't know which, we can't evaluate what impact choice B has on the argument and, therefore, cannot conclude that choice B weakens.

***

Choice D discusses "industrial pollution" which is, likely, different from air pollution due to snowmobiles. At any rate, choice D discusses reducing pollution. But to counter the business spokesperson's claim, we needed a choice that said that pollution (i.e., NOT reducing pollution) isn't economical.

***

[quote2dwivedys]isn't cross country skiers a very specific set of people[/quote2]

The stimulus tells us it's the kind of town in which "snowmobiling" is a big activity in the winter. The spokesperson discusses money collected from "recreational use of the park". It is reasonable to infer that recreational winter activities at the park, if they include snowmobiling, can also include "cross-country skiing".

***

@dwivedys: essentially, I think you converted "counter spokesperson's claim" to "strengthen first speaker's claim". Can't quite do that here because the businessperson is responding to the first speaker by making a claim of his own--a claim, which, according to the instructions in the question stem, we have to directly counter using one of the answer choices...always follow the instructions in the question explicitly!

Kudos [?]: 197 [2], given: 2

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2010, 03:34
Dear Testluv - I think you've unravelled the anatomy of my confusion pretty brilliantly! There were just too many things at play here - not the least of which is the claim of many people (which of course I read after I had attempted the problem) that this is an easy question which was kind of bewildering. Anyway. Things at play were - cross country skiers - pollution - out-of-towners - economics. As you have de-constructed - the argument is basically about what the impact on revenue is from the activities indigenous to Milville - activities that include winter sports such as snow mobiling, skiing and recreational use of parks. I try to follow exactly what the question says - of course I follow it incorrectly is what I am learning now.
I hastily eliminated A because it talked about cross country skiers
I rejected B because Not all - exactly as you explained (and I knew the basic semantics around it) could mean anything.
C is essentially buttressing the environmentalists claim but adding nothing new
E - is concerned with the residents of milville where as business guy is talking about revenues from out of towners.

So while I was on the right track in terms of overall analysis - I was too hasty (and was perhaps lacking an overall picture) in excluding A because for a moment I did not reckon that cross country skiers belong to the same set of out-of-towners who ostensibly bring the revenue (economics) that the Business guy is talking about.

Well - TestLuv - once again - hats off, kudos and a big thank you for being so patient and generous in your explanations.

Regards

EDIT: In so many instances in the past - I have come across choices that are eliminated on the very grounds that I eliminated A on - passage is talking about X but the choice builds in a small difference as a trap. So here I felt cross country skiers - which I took to be distinct from - "sundry out-of-towners" - was actually a trap. Well!! Of course D talks about industrial pollution - but I got misled by the fact that it was still pollution. Essentially D does not address the issue of Economics and had I analyzed the structure of the argument before cracking the choices I would have kept this point in mind and would have eliminated D straight off the bat. Then perhaps I could have chosen as the best among the remaining choices because I had no difficulty removing the other ones. I was essentially between A and D. Anyway...enough said...

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Director
Status: No dream is too large, no dreamer is too small
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 604

Kudos [?]: 1164 [0], given: 39

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2011, 05:36
Milville Business Spokesperson argued Snowmobiles generated income for Milville. Environmentalist defeated by mentioning that cross-country skiers are avoiding Milville for the noise that Snowmobiles are creating . So Resident of Milville are losing a gain.
Ans. A
_________________

Collections:-
PSof OG solved by GC members: http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-ps-with-solution-from-gmatclub-110005.html
DS of OG solved by GC members: http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-ds-with-solution-from-gmatclub-110004.html
100 GMAT PREP Quantitative collection http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-problem-collections-114358.html
Collections of work/rate problems with solutions http://gmatclub.com/forum/collections-of-work-rate-problem-with-solutions-118919.html
Mixture problems in a file with best solutions: http://gmatclub.com/forum/mixture-problems-with-best-and-easy-solutions-all-together-124644.html

Kudos [?]: 1164 [0], given: 39

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2011, 07:16
A

Argument has to be made to support
Has to consider economy viability
A makes sense as it does provide alternative route
BCE has no value to counter argument
D provides a point but cannot be used to counter argument against use of snowmobile

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10154

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2014, 11:46
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.

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4725

Kudos [?]: 18008 [1], given: 1988

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2014, 06:12
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 18008 [1], given: 1988

Intern
Joined: 09 May 2014
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 81

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2014, 23:37
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A :

According to Business Spokesperson: Since there is economic advantage attached to the snowmobiles, we should not ban snowmobiles.

Counter statement would be : "there is no economic gain from snowmobiles"

therefore correct answer option should be A as it clearly states that many cross-country skiers are now avoiding Milville because of pollution and noise.as a result revenue generated would be less

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 81

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 529

Kudos [?]: 664 [1], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other
Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2014, 03:29
1
KUDOS
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: [Premise]Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents.
[Conclusion] So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Assumption: the pollution may not influence the town's ability to attract the visitors and in-turn profit.

A : We are loosing skiers.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Kudos [?]: 664 [1], given: 606

SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1904

Kudos [?]: 547 [0], given: 23

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2016, 00:34
souvik101990 wrote:
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.
D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles owing to pullution
Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiles bring business by attracting out-of-towners to Milville, so we should not ban snowmobile

We need to weaken the argument by the Business Spokesperson.

Option A does it by saying that the cross-country skiers are no longer visiting Milville because of the increased pollution. Hence the correct answer.

Kudos [?]: 547 [0], given: 23

Re: Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville   [#permalink] 03 May 2016, 00:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by