Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
02 Jun 2023, 15:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
he appropriate response from the environmentalist would be:
(B) Challenging an assumption that a certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
The environmentalist disagrees with the business spokesperson's argument that the economic benefit of snowmobiling outweighs the negative effects of pollution. The environmentalist points out that the noise and pollution generated by snowmobiles deter cross-country skiers from visiting Milville, thus challenging the assumption that the economic benefits justify the pollution.
(B) Challenging an assumption that a certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
The environmentalist disagrees with the business spokesperson's argument that the economic benefit of snowmobiling outweighs the negative effects of pollution. The environmentalist points out that the noise and pollution generated by snowmobiles deter cross-country skiers from visiting Milville, thus challenging the assumption that the economic benefits justify the pollution.
15 Sep 2023, 09:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let me take a stab at it
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned. Conclusion - The use of snowmobiles should be banned which in turn will lead to lower pollution.
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. The spokesperson acknowledges that snowmobiles create pollution, but the financial benefit (pro) outweighs the pollution aspect (con).
Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate. - "I disagree" with what? With the spokesperson's conclusion that "economics dictates that we live with the pollution," which in turn means that the Environmentalist says, "Economics DO NOT dictate that we live with pollution," and the environmentalist explains why. The use of snowmobiles (that, in the spokesperson's response, seems to be leading to financial benefit") is actually also leading to a financial loss because "A great many cross-country skiers are kept away."
An 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. - Assumption of whom? Spokesperson's.
Desired outcome - financial benefit
Set of circumstances - use of snowmobile brings many out-of-towners.
The spokesperson doesn't make this assumption. He just says that using snowmobiles brings out-of-towners, which leads to financial benefit, so it's good.
(B) Challenging an assumption that a certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome. -
Desirable outcome - financial benefit (for the spokesperson) or less pollution (for the environmentalist)
The negative aspect of producing the desirable outcome -
financial benefit (for the spokesperson) has a negative aspect in that it increases pollution - an increase in pollution is more important than (outweighs) financial benefit - it doesn't make sense. At least that is not an assumption of the Spokesperson; at best, it may be for the environmentalist - but in this question, we are concerned about the assumption of the Spokesperson and not the Environmentalist - discard this option.
Less pollution (for the environmentalist) has a negative aspect because it causes economic consequences. - now let's put this in this option format - the economic consequences are more important than (outweigh) less pollution - exactly. That is what the Spokesperson assumes, and that's the basic assumption that leads her/him to make the conclusion (even after acknowledging that the use of snowmobiles causes pollution) that "economics dictate that we live with the pollution."
The Environmentalist challenges this very assumption and shares that the very use of snowmobiles is detrimental to the financial benefit as "A great many cross-country skiers are kept away," and by the way, those cross-country skiers don't even cause pollution or maybe less pollution.
The real-life implication of this argument I can see is when someone is trying to sell you a cheap (seemingly easy) solution when out there, there are even better solutions available to achieve the same goal sustainably. As we say, "Kill two birds with one stone."
(C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means. "GREATER" is a deal breaker here. We don't know from the argument if it's greater or equal.
(D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it. - The spokesperson is not attacking the environmentalist conclusion. That would mean saying no, there is no pollution by the use of snowmobiles. The environmentalist acknowledges that, yes, the use of snowmobiles causes pollution, but since the financial benefit is more than the benefit of less pollution let's live with it.
(E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people. - The environmentalist does not deny that certain people may have benefitted; she/he is saying that the use of snowmobiles may have resumed benefitting certain people, but that same use is detrimental as it keeps away a great many cross-country skiers, a business opportunity that may have resulted in benefitting those people more sustainably. (without pollution)
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned. Conclusion - The use of snowmobiles should be banned which in turn will lead to lower pollution.
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. The spokesperson acknowledges that snowmobiles create pollution, but the financial benefit (pro) outweighs the pollution aspect (con).
Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate. - "I disagree" with what? With the spokesperson's conclusion that "economics dictates that we live with the pollution," which in turn means that the Environmentalist says, "Economics DO NOT dictate that we live with pollution," and the environmentalist explains why. The use of snowmobiles (that, in the spokesperson's response, seems to be leading to financial benefit") is actually also leading to a financial loss because "A great many cross-country skiers are kept away."
An 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. - Assumption of whom? Spokesperson's.
Desired outcome - financial benefit
Set of circumstances - use of snowmobile brings many out-of-towners.
The spokesperson doesn't make this assumption. He just says that using snowmobiles brings out-of-towners, which leads to financial benefit, so it's good.
(B) Challenging an assumption that a certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome. -
Desirable outcome - financial benefit (for the spokesperson) or less pollution (for the environmentalist)
The negative aspect of producing the desirable outcome -
financial benefit (for the spokesperson) has a negative aspect in that it increases pollution - an increase in pollution is more important than (outweighs) financial benefit - it doesn't make sense. At least that is not an assumption of the Spokesperson; at best, it may be for the environmentalist - but in this question, we are concerned about the assumption of the Spokesperson and not the Environmentalist - discard this option.
Less pollution (for the environmentalist) has a negative aspect because it causes economic consequences. - now let's put this in this option format - the economic consequences are more important than (outweigh) less pollution - exactly. That is what the Spokesperson assumes, and that's the basic assumption that leads her/him to make the conclusion (even after acknowledging that the use of snowmobiles causes pollution) that "economics dictate that we live with the pollution."
The Environmentalist challenges this very assumption and shares that the very use of snowmobiles is detrimental to the financial benefit as "A great many cross-country skiers are kept away," and by the way, those cross-country skiers don't even cause pollution or maybe less pollution.
The real-life implication of this argument I can see is when someone is trying to sell you a cheap (seemingly easy) solution when out there, there are even better solutions available to achieve the same goal sustainably. As we say, "Kill two birds with one stone."
(C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means. "GREATER" is a deal breaker here. We don't know from the argument if it's greater or equal.
(D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it. - The spokesperson is not attacking the environmentalist conclusion. That would mean saying no, there is no pollution by the use of snowmobiles. The environmentalist acknowledges that, yes, the use of snowmobiles causes pollution, but since the financial benefit is more than the benefit of less pollution let's live with it.
(E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people. - The environmentalist does not deny that certain people may have benefitted; she/he is saying that the use of snowmobiles may have resumed benefitting certain people, but that same use is detrimental as it keeps away a great many cross-country skiers, a business opportunity that may have resulted in benefitting those people more sustainably. (without pollution)
13 Jun 2024, 21:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
KarishmaB
Hello KarishmaB, sorry for digging up this old one.
If 'certain desirable outcome' is getting tourists and 'negative aspects' is pollution. Wouldn't B be incorrect because it says 'challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome'.
Environmentalists argue that pollution prevents skiier from coming thus challenges the assumption that pollutions (negative) is outweighed by getting tourists (positive).
Therefore isnt it incorrect because B has states the opposite?
