It is currently 24 Nov 2017, 00:42

### 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: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1111

Kudos [?]: 124 [5], given: 0

Location: CA
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 00:06
5
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

45% (01:22) correct 55% (01:23) wrong based on 1434 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Edit: THIS QUESTION HAS RETIRED. FIND THE NEW DISCUSSION HERE

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.
B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means.
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.
E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)

Kudos [?]: 124 [5], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 481 [1], given: 0

Location: Dhaka
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 05:35
1
KUDOS
I think it is C.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 481 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 31

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2014, 11:29
1
KUDOS
Vinitkhicha1111 wrote:
I agree with christoph and IMO option A is more pertinent here as compared with B because in B the words "outweighed by" aren't correct and imply as if the pollution (negative aspect) is dominating over or surpassing the financial benefits (desirable outcome) WHEREAS the correct lingo should have mentioned that the pollution (negative aspect) OUTWEIGHS the financial benefits (desirable outcome) obtained by using the snowmobiles .Moreover, the environmentalist argues that the financial benefits as such can be obtained ( although degree of the benefit isn't known) through inviting the skiers by reducing the sound and noise pollution by use of snowmobiles. Other members, please provide your opinions regarding this.

OA is definitely B.

Reading your post, I think you have it backwards. Let's break down the argument, B, and then A (and then a note on C):

1. The environmentalist is saying that the snowmobiles cause pollution.
2. The business spokesperson says that we should put up with the pollution because it generates revenue. Basically, that the benefits of the revenue outweigh the negatives of the pollution.
3. The environmentalist responds by pointing out that the pollution also causes a decrease in a different revenue stream, the one from the skiers.

B: "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome"

This answer tells us that the environmentalist is challenging the business spokesperson's assumption that a certain desirable outcome (maybe stopping the pollution) is outweighed by (not as good as) negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (maybe the lost snowmobile revenue). This fits exactly what we want because the environmentalist is saying that the business spokesperson is wrong for thinking that we shouldn't clean up pollution because of the money. I think you flipped this instead. Maybe you focused on the "desirable outcome" as instead being the snowmobile revenue? Maybe you missed the "challenging" word at the beginning and thought that it meant that the environmentalist believes in that assumption? Be careful when you read that you have everything in the right order. Slowing down and rechecking your thoughts can often lead to clarity.

A: "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"

What is the "desirable outcome" here? It definitely cannot be stopping the pollution because we are not talking about accomplishing stopping the pollution in "other" ways. Instead, the desirable outcome here would have to be keeping the snowmobile revenue (so this would have to be a different desirable outcome from the one in B). Thus, this answer would have to be saying that the environmentalist is arguing against the idea that the snowmobile revenue can come from only one set of circumstances.

C: "Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means."

This sounds really close, because the environmentalist seems to suggest that there is a benefit that the spokesperson desires (snowmobile revenue) that we could get "in greater degree by a different means" (from the skiers), but it doesn't match as well for a few reasons. First, "maintaining" is a little too strong here. It suggests that the speaker has already said that this is true. If I say A is true and you say B is true and then I say A is still true, then I maintained my position. Instead, the environmentalist never began by discussing the financial benefits and so cannot "maintain" that position. Much more importantly, the author never actually says that we can get more money from skiers, it is only suggested. The problem with that is it is entirely possible and consistent with the argument that the lost snowmobile revenue (say \$10,000) is more than the lost skier revenue (say \$9,000) and that the difference (\$1,000) is not enough to justify putting up with the pollution. Thus, the environmentalist doesn't have to believe that the monetary benefit could be achieved in a greater degree (more money) by another means (skier revenue); instead, the environmentalist is saying that the skier revenue makes it okay to stop the pollution and lose the snowmobile revenue. This is different than B because B just says that one situation is outweighed by another, while C says that a specific benefit must be able to be achieved to a greater extent through another means and we don't know that that is true.

fguardini1, Aristocrat, and nerd got pretty close to explaining it correctly a few posts above - I just wanted to expound to, hopefully, make it very clear

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 31

Intern
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 35

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

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 00:49
VOTE FOR
E. Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people

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

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 544

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 03:11
Hey, I choose A

D is out because the enviromentalists doens'tclaim that
B mispresenting the facts
E, no comment

C vs. A

C isn't stated explicitly

A is clear and active

Last edited by allabout on 21 Dec 2005, 02:11, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 713

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 03:23
I vote for B

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 544

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 05:39
NO one for D yet? Variety makes the difference

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 35

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

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 07:40
NO one for D yet? Variety makes the difference

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

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 15:03
I think it has to be between A and B. I think they both are very close depending upon how you look at it.

I will go with B.

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 426 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 15:42
A) !

IMO...

B) is out b/c the negative aspects do not outweigh the desirable outcome

C) nothing is mentioned about a "greater degree"
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 426 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2005, 23:15
I think its C.

Environmentalist agree with the business spokesperson on "So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution." but Environmentalist disagrees that financial benifits can be achieved only by snowmobiles. Financial benifits can be achieved by promoting skiers rathan than snowmobiles.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5201

Kudos [?]: 438 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 02:09
I`ll take B. This reads like an LSAT CR.

Kudos [?]: 438 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 567

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

Location: Munich,Germany
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 03:49
I will go with B as well.

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

Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 18

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

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 08:36
B

[quote="duttsit"]Environmentalist:

The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist:I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances

B. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome

C. Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means

D. Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalistÂ

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

VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1111

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 0

Location: CA
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 09:38
Bhai wrote:
I think it has to be between A and B. I think they both are very close depending upon how you look at it.

I will go with B.

why not E?
_________________

Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 426 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 10:29
i want to explain a lil futher why its not B) ! my last post was a lil short...

the question is: how does E respond to S ?

B) "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome"

S does not mention any negative aspects that outweigh the desirable outcome !

again, the question asks: how does E respond to S ?

A) "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"

yes, S says that x leads to y !

E responds and implies that z can lead to y as well !
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 426 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 10:34
duttsit wrote:
Bhai wrote:
I think it has to be between A and B. I think they both are very close depending upon how you look at it.

I will go with B.

why not E?

I do not think E is even close. It is not cleat that the effect that the spoksperson presented--the financial benefits on local population--even reached the local people. The environmentalist changes the course of discussion by saying that the revenue stream is lost since snow enthusiast outsiders do not come. There is no information that the financial effects reach local population. Hhhhhhm!

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 11:10
Is there any OA for this question.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1111

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 0

Location: CA
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 11:26
For the record, OA is B, though some of you may not agree

I do not have OE but here are my 2 cents:

A:

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances
desirable outcome: great financial benefit of many local residents
one set of circumstances: brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months

E does not challenge this as she doe not propose/hints any alternate set of circumstances.

A might be more strong if E had responded:
A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate but many local residents are still in great financial position.

Bhai explained very well how E is not correct answer.
_________________

Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 426 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2005, 13:17
duttsit wrote:
For the record, OA is B, though some of you may not agree

I do not have OE but here are my 2 cents:

A:

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances
desirable outcome: great financial benefit of many local residents
one set of circumstances: brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months

E does not challenge this as she doe not propose/hints any alternate set of circumstances.

A might be more strong if E had responded:
A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate but many local residents are still in great financial position.

Bhai explained very well how E is not correct answer.

you are right ! i dont agree is the source reliable ? or is it the 1000-cr-document ?
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 426 [0], given: 0

Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park   [#permalink] 21 Dec 2005, 13:17

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 51 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by