Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create una

I couldnt quite understand the meaning of the question 'counter the business'..

what does this counter mean? is it weaken?

thanks

[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!

I looked around a bit for this question and found links to some questionable forums, so I'm not sure where it's from, but in any case, there didn't seem to be any agreement about the OA. I don't think B is a good answer here. We are asked to evaluate the environmentalist's response found at the end of the passage. The environmentalist is responding to the businessperson, who essentially says: 'the positive economic benefits of snowmobiling are more important than the negative environmental impact of snowmobiling'. The environmentalist does *not* challenge this assumption (so B is not a good answer here). If the environmentalist had responded by saying something like 'you can't put a pricetag on the environment', then B would be a more appropriate answer, because the environmentalist would then be weighing, in his or her response, environmental effects with economic effects.

Instead, the environmentalist accepts the businessperson's premise - that snowmobiling helps the economy by attracting visitors - but responds by suggesting that, by banning snowmobiling, the town will attract a 'great many' other visitors: cross-country skiers. These new visitors will presumably help the economy in much the same way as do snowmobilers. So, the businessperson is assuming that snowmobiling is the *only* way to attract the visitors needed to boost the economy ("economics dictate that we put up with the pollution"), and the environmentalist is challenging that assumption. That's what A says.

Thanks Ian. yeah I see E is an equal contender. Can you please explain what I am missing -

Financial benefit will outweigh against pollution. This is the crux of the statement by business spokesperson.

Environmentalist says that people are not benefited because of the noise and pollution generated by snowmobiles. So E should be correct answer. What's wrong with E then?

It's important to look at the precise wording of the question:



We're only interested in the logic of the environmentalist's response to the businessperson - that is, the logic of the final paragraph:



The environmentalist, in his or her response, nowhere discusses the negative environmental effects of snowmobiling. That's part of the first paragraph, not the third. So your paraphrase of the environmentalist's response uses information that you shouldn't be using. The environmentalist's response is that 'by getting rid of snowmobiles, we'll attract skiers to our town'. So this answer:



doesn't describe what the environmentalist is saying; the environmentalist does not deny the economic benefits of snowmobiling, but rather suggests that economic benefits will come from banning snowmobiling, but from a different source - from skiers.

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.

Can someone please explain why e is incorrect and how to chose between 'A' and 'E'...?

Posted from my mobile device

Rakeshtewatia:
E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.-- In the argument the point of view of people of Milville is nowhere considered , hence its out of scope.

GMATNinja :Is my reasoning to reject E correct ?

But option A could be untrue on the basis that, we do not know whether the number of skiiers that are prevented from visiting the Melville town due to pollution exceeds the no. of snowmobilers. If Their no. far exceeds the no. of outside snowmobilers then, it'll be more probable, otw not. Ambiguity still exists.

Thanks zac123! This looks pretty good. Regardless of how some portion of Milville residents FEEL about the fees, the fees do exist and indirectly benefit all residents.


Yes, we do not know the exact numbers, but we don't have to. We are only looking for the answer that "could best be used by the environmentalist to counter (i.e. weaken) the business spokersponerson's argument." We do not have to PROVE that the argument is false.

Choice A, if true, would weaken the argument, even though it certainly does not DISPROVE the argument.

Has anyone actually seen this question in GMATPrep? If so, please post a screenshot to confirm the source.

A similar version, with a full explanation, can be found here.

My take is:

If a great many cross-country skiers are now kept
from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate,

then, the potential business opportunities and financial gains from these cross-country skiers are lost.

Therefore, the businessman's argument is weakened. More snow-mobile would not necessary generate profits for the town.

(A) is the best imo

crazy question!
E is the best
why A? cross country is out of scope
Spokesman consider the issue about money, so in order to reject this, we need to refer to money

How to eliminate D or B?
D directly addresses the pollution problem from an example somewhere. And B directly attacks the economic part of it.

Posted from my mobile device

We need to weaken the Spokesperson conclusion.
Conclusion : it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution. ---> economics strong ( let the pollution go on)





I can read it as:
Some in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
Very few in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town. --> If very few, then it doesn't add much to town fees then economics > pollution is not a point of discussion. This option become irrelevant.
Mostly all in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town. --> Yes good strengthener. So it must not be bannned. But we need to find weakner. How can be this option an answer
( % proportion varies the weakness of answer, so it can not be a strong weakner)

Secondly, I need to focus in area " in the park north of Milville"
Is it in vicinity of Milville ? or is it in the Milville
Again an open claim and can be argued.

So this is far from right answer.


That's good to hear. But can we apply the same rule in case of pollution raised by Snowmobiles? Actually we can't say whether it can be reduced .--> open point to argue
Even it can be reduced, then I am not weakening the conclusion.
I need to weaken an option : economics> pollution.
With this option , I am getting a message that pollution can be reduced so economics benefits can continue. So this option is irrelevant for us.


With same technique, It directly hit the conclusion.
Economics> Pollution .
This option says that there is no economics ( no benefits because tourists won't come, no pay fees, no add benefits to town ) if pollution still exists
It weakens the claim on the basis of which the conclusion was driven.

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.