GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 02 Apr 2020, 22:43

### 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

# Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 765
Location: CA
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 15 Oct 2018, 03:06
13
50
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (01:58) correct 52% (02:01) wrong based on 1661 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 7: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

Similar Question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/environmenta ... 90197.html

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

Originally posted by duttsit on 19 Dec 2005, 23:06.
Last edited by Bunuel on 15 Oct 2018, 03:06, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3250
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2017, 19:47
21
9
Let's start by breaking down the exchange between the environmentalist and the business spokesperson:

The environmentalist says that snowmobiles should be banned because they create unacceptable levels of air pollution (eg an environmental concern).

The business spokesperson responds by saying that snowmobiles bring in many out-of-towners during the winter months, financially benefiting many local residents. The spokesperson then specifically acknowledges the environmental concern (ie does not disagree that snowmobiling causes air pollution) but maintains that the economic "pro" outweighs the environmental "con". Thus, the spokesperson concludes that economics dictate that the town should put up with the pollution.

The environmentalist then responds by stating that although snowmobiling may in fact bring in many people who want to snowmobile, snowmobiling keeps a great many cross-country skiers from visiting. This consequence has a negative impact on the economy, so the environmentalist concludes that economics do NOT dictate that the town should put up with the pollution.

Notice that the environmentalist does not dispute the spokesperson's claim that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners and thus has a positive economic consequence; rather, the environmentalist adds that snowmobiling also has a negative economic impact.

Now that we understand how the environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson, let's look at the answer choices:
Quote:
A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.

First, what are the "desirable outcomes" referenced in this passage? 1) financial benefit to local residents and 2) less air pollution. Where do those "desirable outcomes" come from? 1) from bringing in out-of-towners (ie snowmobilers or cross-country skiers) and 2) from banning snowmobiling.

Notice that the spokesperson's argument does not require the assumption that either desirable outcome comes from only one set of circumstances. The spokesperson simply notes that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners which creates a financial benefit, he/she does not imply that this is the only way to achieve that benefit. The environmentalist does not challenge this assumption because the spokesperson never makes that assumption. Choice (A) can be eliminated.

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

As discussed in (A), less air pollution is a desirable outcome, but what is the negative aspect of this outcome? Well, in order to achieve it, the town would have to ban snowmobiling, preventing those out-of-towners (those who want to enjoy snowmobiling) from coming to town and financially benefiting the locals. According to the spokesperson, this negative outcome (less financial benefit from out-of-towners) outweighs the desirable outcome (less air pollution). The environmentalist challenges this assumption by pointing out an economic benefit that would occur if snowmobiling were banned: more cross-country skiers would come to town, creating a financial benefit and offsetting the negative economic impact assumed by the spokesperson. (B) is looking pretty good.

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

The benefit that the spokesperson desires is financial benefit to the local residents. Although the environmentalist does imply that financial benefit can be created by a different means (ie banning snowmobiling and thus attracting more cross-country skiers), the environmentalist does NOT suggest that banning snowmobiling would achieve a GREATER degree of financial benefit than allowing snowmobiling.

The environmentalist is simply trying to demonstrate that the negative economic impact assumed by the spokesperson would not outweigh the positive environmental impact. This argument would hold up if both means created the same financial benefit. Choice (C) can be eliminated.

Quote:
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.

Neither the spokesperson nor the environmentalist ever argues against the facts stated by the other person. Rather, each concedes the facts previously stated by the other person and simply adds new information to support a different conclusion. The environmentalist certainly does not claim that the spokesperson is "deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist's position," so choice (D) can be eliminated.

Quote:
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 snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners or that it creates a financial benefit to the local residents. The environmentalist simply presents an additional economic factor that the spokesperson did not mention: although snowmobiling may bring in many people who want to snowmobile (a financial positive for the locals), snowmobiling keeps a great many cross-country skiers from visiting (a financial negative for the locals).

Choice (E) can be eliminated, and we are left with (B).
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
##### General Discussion
Current Student
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 78
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.8
WE: Business Development (Insurance)
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2014, 01:48
1
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.
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 71
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2014, 10:29
1
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
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10239
Location: Pune, India
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2014, 22:32
2
1
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.

Responding to a pm:

The correct option here is (B) and here is why:

Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles because they create air pollution

Business guy: Snowmobiling brings tourists and hence money. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: Snowmobiles keep skiers away.

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.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"
No. The business guy does not say that only snowmobiling can bring in tourists and hence money. He says that snowmobiling brings in tourists and hence money and so is good. He does not say that allowing snowmobiles is the only circumstance that can lead to money.
Hence, incorrect.

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

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome."
What is "certain desirable outcome"? Getting tourists
What are "negative aspects"? Pollution and more to the point, effect of pollution i.e. keeping skiers away
How is the outcome produced? By allowing snowmobiles

In all, the env challenges the assumption that getting tourists outweighs effects of pollution. The business guy assumes that getting tourists monetarily outweighs the effects of pollution so we should put up with pollution. The env challenges it by saying that effects of pollution include negative monetary effects (skiers do not come) so how can you say that getting tourists outweighs the problems associated with pollution.

This is correct.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Current Student
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 78
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.8
WE: Business Development (Insurance)
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2014, 00:10
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.

Responding to a pm:

The correct option here is (B) and here is why:

Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles because they create air pollution

Business guy: Snowmobiling brings tourists and hence money. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: Snowmobiles keep skiers away.

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.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"
No. The business guy does not say that only snowmobiling can bring in tourists and hence money. He says that snowmobiling brings in tourists and hence money and so is good. He does not say that allowing snowmobiles is the only circumstance that can lead to money.
Hence, incorrect.

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

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome."
What is "certain desirable outcome"? Getting tourists
What are "negative aspects"? Pollution and more to the point, effect of pollution i.e. keeping skiers away
How is the outcome produced? By allowing snowmobiles

In all, the env challenges the assumption that getting tourists outweighs effects of pollution. The business guy assumes that getting tourists monetarily outweighs the effects of pollution so we should put up with pollution. The env challenges it by saying that effects of pollution include negative monetary effects (skiers do not come) so how can you say that getting tourists outweighs the problems associated with pollution.

This is correct.

YES I agree with your solution but you have used the same point in your solution of desirable outcome OUTWEIGHS the negative effects and not that THE DESIRABLE OUTCOME is OUTWEIGHED by pollution. My concern was the way in which the Option B has been written and not with its structure. If I am not wrong..??
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10239
Location: Pune, India
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2014, 20:59
Vinitkhicha1111 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.

Responding to a pm:

The correct option here is (B) and here is why:

Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles because they create air pollution

Business guy: Snowmobiling brings tourists and hence money. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree: Snowmobiles keep skiers away.

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.

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"
No. The business guy does not say that only snowmobiling can bring in tourists and hence money. He says that snowmobiling brings in tourists and hence money and so is good. He does not say that allowing snowmobiles is the only circumstance that can lead to money.
Hence, incorrect.

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

Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's)
What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome."
What is "certain desirable outcome"? Getting tourists
What are "negative aspects"? Pollution and more to the point, effect of pollution i.e. keeping skiers away
How is the outcome produced? By allowing snowmobiles

In all, the env challenges the assumption that getting tourists outweighs effects of pollution. The business guy assumes that getting tourists monetarily outweighs the effects of pollution so we should put up with pollution. The env challenges it by saying that effects of pollution include negative monetary effects (skiers do not come) so how can you say that getting tourists outweighs the problems associated with pollution.

This is correct.

YES I agree with your solution but you have used the same point in your solution of desirable outcome OUTWEIGHS the negative effects and not that THE DESIRABLE OUTCOME is OUTWEIGHED by pollution. My concern was the way in which the Option B has been written and not with its structure. If I am not wrong..??

You have a point Vinit. It certainly seems to be an error in the question since the intent is certainly clear. The assumption is that the positive outweighs the negative, not that the positive is outweighed by the negative. It becomes nonsensical if we say that the positive is outweighed by the negative i.e. the negative is stronger - whereas the business rep's argument is opposite. Hence (B) should be framed as desirable outcomes outweighs the negative effects. I suggest you move on.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 472
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2017, 20:32
Tough one but will go with option B.

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome (great financial benefit from Snowmobiling) is outweighed by negative aspects (noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate keep many cross-country skiers away from the town) associated with producing that outcome.
Current Student
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 1077
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 10 May 2017, 09:31
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. - there is no desired outcome

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

C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means. there are no benefits spoken about

D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it. no misrepresentation at all

E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people. irrelevant

Hence B

Posted from my mobile device

Originally posted by Hatakekakashi on 10 May 2017, 06:21.
Last edited by Hatakekakashi on 10 May 2017, 09:31, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Posts: 103
GPA: 3.72
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 09:13
A very good question, and certainly hard one to solve under 3 minutes...
Dear GMATNinja / GMATNinjaTwo Any tips how to save time in such questions?
_________________
A lot needs to be learned from all of you.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3250
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 15:19
1
DAakash7 wrote:
A very good question, and certainly hard one to solve under 3 minutes...
Dear GMATNinja / GMATNinjaTwo Any tips how to save time in such questions?

Sadly, there aren't really any magic bullets that will make you faster at CR, other than just getting better at reading passages in general -- and making sure that you're being efficient in your approach to questions.

This article doesn't directly address speed all that much, but it'll give you an idea of how to think optimally about CR, and start to build some good habits: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43170.html. In particular, some people end up answering questions more slowly when they fail to invest enough time in the passages themselves. If you move on to the answer choices before you've fully understood the passage itself, you'll waste a ton of time going back and forth between the answer choices and the passage.

I'm not sure whether that applies to you, but it's a problem that we see fairly often. And if you try to "save time" by reading the passage faster, it can work against you: you'll make more errors, and you'll waste time spinning your wheels on the answer choices.

And if you're simply cursed with a slow reading speed, CR can be really tough, but you'll get stronger at reading them with enough practice.

Sorry that I can't offer anything more concrete to speed you up! It's one of the annoying things about the GMAT: CR and RC just don't give us a lot of room for shortcuts, sadly.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3250
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2017, 15:20
Oh, and one other thing I should have said, DAakash7: this particular passage is pretty tough, so there's no shame in taking some extra time on it.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2017
Posts: 2
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2017, 09:56
Quote:
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.

Taking the question and answer choices verbatim, I would choose A. (Others have commented on why C, D and E can be eliminated so I will focus on why option B can be eliminated.)

If B is indeed the correct answer as per an official solution, then I think that answer choice B may have been transcribed incorrectly from source material.

Here's why I think that B can be eliminated, if we take the answer choices from the original post verbatim. Given the question is focused on how the environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson, we can deduce that the "assumption" that is referenced in option B refers to that made by the business spokesperson. However, in his/her statement, the business spokesperson never makes the assumption that a "certain desirable outcome" (i.e., financial benefit) is outweighed by "negative aspects" (i.e., pollution). In fact, the business person claims the opposite to be true - he believes that the desirable outcome of financial benefit outweighs the negative aspects of pollution.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3250
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2017, 18:41
2
iceman1212 wrote:
Taking the question and answer choices verbatim, I would choose A. (Others have commented on why C, D and E can be eliminated so I will focus on why option B can be eliminated.)

If B is indeed the correct answer as per an official solution, then I think that answer choice B may have been transcribed incorrectly from source material.

Here's why I think that B can be eliminated, if we take the answer choices from the original post verbatim. Given the question is focused on how the environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson, we can deduce that the "assumption" that is referenced in option B refers to that made by the business spokesperson. However, in his/her statement, the business spokesperson never makes the assumption that a "certain desirable outcome" (i.e., financial benefit) is outweighed by "negative aspects" (i.e., pollution). In fact, the business person claims the opposite to be true - he believes that the desirable outcome of financial benefit outweighs the negative aspects of pollution.

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

Yes, the business person does claim that the desirable outcome of financial benefit outweighs the negative outcome of higher air pollution. But there are two potential desirable outcomes: financial benefits and LOWER pollution levels.

The business spokesperson would agree that lowering pollution is a desirable outcome. But the spokesperson believes that the benefit of lowering pollution is outweighed by the financial cost of lowering pollution. In other words, the business person believes that lowering pollution (i.e. a "certain desirable outcome") is outweighed by the loss of financial benefit (i.e. the negative aspects associated with lowering pollution). This fits perfectly with choice (B).

As for (A), as described in the original explanation,

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

First, what are the "desirable outcomes" referenced in this passage? 1) financial benefit to local residents and 2) less air pollution. Where do those "desirable outcomes" come from? 1) from bringing in out-of-towners (ie snowmobilers or cross-country skiers) and 2) from banning snowmobiling.

Notice that the spokesperson's argument does not require the assumption that either desirable outcome comes from only one set of circumstances. The spokesperson simply notes that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners which creates a financial benefit, he/she does not imply that this is the only way to achieve that benefit. The environmentalist does not challenge this assumption because the spokesperson never makes that assumption. Choice (A) can be eliminated.

Choice (B) is the best answer. I hope that helps! And more importantly: welcome to GMAT Club!!!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2018
Posts: 2
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2018, 04:58
warriorguy wrote:
Tough one but will go with option B.

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome (great financial benefit from Snowmobiling) is outweighed by negative aspects (noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate keep many cross-country skiers away from the town) associated with producing that outcome.

The guy may mean that thought there are several other ways of economic benefit but motorballing may be the major and thus its absence can cause economic concerns.
And when the environmentalist says that he disagrees and points out another revenue stream, he is not saying that the other guy falsely assumed that it's only motoballing that can bring revenue He is actually saying that the negative aspect of banning (absence of motor-balling) wouldn't outweigh the desired outcome as then another revenue stream opens up and in doing so he challenges the same assumption given in option (B)

GMATNINJA let me know if i am along the right line of thinking.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3250
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2018, 14:06
1
ash091109 wrote:
warriorguy wrote:
Tough one but will go with option B.

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome (great financial benefit from Snowmobiling) is outweighed by negative aspects (noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate keep many cross-country skiers away from the town) associated with producing that outcome.

The guy may mean that thought there are several other ways of economic benefit but motorballing may be the major and thus its absence can cause economic concerns.
And when the environmentalist says that he disagrees and points out another revenue stream, he is not saying that the other guy falsely assumed that it's only motoballing that can bring revenue He is actually saying that the negative aspect of banning (absence of motor-balling) wouldn't outweigh the desired outcome as then another revenue stream opens up and in doing so he challenges the same assumption given in option (B)

GMATNINJA let me know if i am along the right line of thinking.

I think you are on the right track when you wrote this: "He is actually saying that the negative aspect of banning (absence of motor-balling) wouldn't outweigh the desired outcome as then another revenue stream opens up and in doing so he challenges the same assumption given in option (B)..."

The desired outcome in this case is less air pollution. In order to achieve that outcome, the town would have to ban snowmobiling. The negative aspect of this ban would be a loss of great financial benefit to the locals. According to the business spokesperson, having less air pollution (desired outcome) is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (loss of financial benefit).

The environmentalist challenges this assumption. The financial loss would not be so great because, if snowmobiling is banned, there would be additional revenue from the cross-country skiers.

I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8619
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2019, 19:14
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.
Re: Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil   [#permalink] 11 Jul 2019, 19:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne