From 1973 to 1986, growth in the United States economy was over 33 per

Question

From 1973 to 1986, growth in the United States economy was over 33 percent, while the percent growth in United States energy consumption was zero. The number of barrels of oil being saved per day by energy-efficiency improvements made since 1973 is now 13 million.

If the information above is correct, which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn on the basis of it?

A. It is more difficult to find new sources of oil than to institute new energy-conservation measures.
B. Oil imports cannot be reduced unless energy consumption does not grow at all.
C. A reduction in the consumption of gasoline was the reason overall energy consumption remained steady.
D. It is possible for an economy to grow without consuming additional energy.
E. The development of nontraditional energy sources will make it possible for the United States economy to grow even faster.

ID: 500120
CR80661.01
Verbal Review 2020 NEW QUESTION

DavidTutorexamPAL · Accepted Answer

We are given a comparison between 'economic growth' and 'growth energy consumption' and told that the first increased and the second did not. We are also told that a certain amount of oil is being saved by energy improvements. As it is difficult to infer a likely answer in 'must or could be true' type questions, we'll go over all of the options, the Alternative approach.

A. We have no information on the relative ease of finding new sources of oil. No
B. We have no information on how to reduce oil imports. No
C. We have no information on what caused energy consumption to remain steady. No
D. This is exactly what happened so is true. This is almost certainly our answer, let's go over (E)
E. We have no information on the link between development of energy sources and growth. No

(D) is our answer; note that all other answers explicitly added information not in the original passage. This is what you need to watch out for in these types of questions.

AkshdeepS · Answer

If the information above is correct, which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn on the basis of it?

A. It is more difficult to find new sources of oil than to institute new energy-conservation measures.
 
 Passage does not state any type of difficulty. There is no comparison between new sources and new conservation measures.

B. Oil imports cannot be reduced unless energy consumption does not grow at all.

Can't be inferred. No mention of imports anywhere. Also, extreme choice (does not grow at all).
  
C. A reduction in the consumption of gasoline was the reason overall energy consumption remained steady.

Gasoline not mentioned in the passage. Out of scope. 
 
D. It is possible for an economy to grow without consuming additional energy.

Correct. Soft language is the indication that this is the correct answer. Passage states that economy grew but energy consumption remained zero.
  
E. The development of nontraditional energy sources will make it possible for the United States economy to grow even faster.

Non Traditional energy sources are out of scope.

dcummins · Answer

Economy grew from 73-86 by 33.3%
however, Energy consumption grew by 0% and in fact energy efficiencies, as measured by the number of barrels of oil saved per day, have reached 13 million barrels since 1973.

Thus, it is clear the economy is able to grow without consuming additional energy (since energy has been saved, not spent)

sony1000 · Answer

I was wondering why C is wrong because it mentions consumption of gasoline, then I found the by-products made out of a barrel of oil. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/can-ma ... arrel-oil/

XyLan · Answer

sony1000 , The barrels of Oil ----  can yield  ---> gasoline: It's a thoughtful  consideration .
However, Let's  Deep-dive !

Given:   
1) From 1973 to 1986: The growth in US economy > 33%.
2) From 1973 to 1986: The growth in US energy consumption = 0%.
3) Since 1973: The # of barrels of oil saved is 13 million. 
   - The number of barrels of oil being saved per day by energy-efficiency improvements made  SINCE  1973 is  NOW  13 million.      
Notice,  How GMAT  plays  with the language. 
 The 1st and 2nd data-points cover the duration   from 1973 to 1986  , whereas the 3rd data-point covers the timeline  SINCE  1973, implying the timeline  from 1973 till  NOW .

A  Classic  move by GMAT!

Option-C  : A reduction in the consumption of gasoline was the reason overall energy consumption remained steady.
 It's  NOT  necessary to say:  A reduction in the consumption of gasoline ------  led to  -----> overall energy consumption remained steady. 
The # of barrels of oil saved CAN easily result in   any   time interval between  1973  and  2019  ( NOW )  - NOT necessarily From 1973 to 1986 - thereby, shattering the  UNJUST  inference.
The entire savings of 13 million CAN come  after  1986,  say from 1990 to 1995 , and  still , the notion will be  TRUE .
   Ex:   Because of the findings of  shell gas  in the oceans  from 1990 to 1995  ----------> The # of barrels of oil saved was 13 million.

Nevertheless, even if the events occurred in the  same time-frame , they  easily  CAN be coincident events, NOT  necessarily  causative, unless backed by the argument.   - Capacity vs Certainty.

TakeAway:   
An inference is a  MUST-BE-TRUE  statement -  a 100% factually correct !
 Any  sub-scenario/cases which CAN shatter the conclusion is  NEVER  going to be the correct answer.
Moreover,  Option-C   CAN  be discarded on grounds that it used information  NOT  supported by the argument.

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Hello my honorable expert,
In the passage, the author is talking about US economy. In correct choice D, ''an economy'' could be India's economy! 
Q1:
So, do you think that this conclusion has been drawn properly?

Q2:
Here,
-->Economy grew up
-->Energy consumption did not grew up
-->energy save till today 13 million barrels
How is it possible to guarantee that the economy will grow after today?
Thank you all..

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Asad . Since others have posted well-reasoned responses to each answer choice, I will simply stick to your questions here.
 
Absolutely, and for the very reason you drew attention to:  an economy  is vague and can thus refer to  any  economy. The United States is being held up as a single example of a country with such an economy, but the fact that its economy has grown without consuming additional energy proves that the feat can be achieved. Whether India, Iceland, or Ivory Coast (three "I" countries that came to mind that are not really close to one another) adopted such a model is beside the point. If the U.S. can achieve growth while making energy-efficiency improvements, then so can another country.

I think you are twisting up your possibilities here. The correct answer indicates that some country is capable of producing an economy in which growth occurs without creating a greater energy burden. There is no mention of a guarantee anywhere in the passage or correct response. What happens to the U.S. economy and energy consumption beyond the time period presented is outside the scope of the passage. As explained above, the U.S. model for the purposes of the passage and question  proves  that economic growth  can  happen without leading to energy-consumption increases as well. What happens at any other time does not concern us.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, please ask.

- Andrew

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

It's ok, but don't you think that we're assuming outside knowledge here? If US can grow, then other country (e.g., India, Canada) can grow the economy-it's just an assumption which is NOT allowed in must be true/ draw the conclusion question. The whole passage is all about the US economy. So, should not we be specific in our thinking?
Here is an analogy:
 Andrew did not write in the forum yesterday. He also did not write the day before yesterday. So, his friend (Mr, X) did not write 2 days in a row (conclusion).  
^^ I've replaced the name ''Andrew" with "Mr. X", because every people in this group know that IF Andrew does not write anything in this forum for 2 days in a row, then his friend (Mr. X) also does not write anything in this forum for that 2 days in a row!
If I can replace the name ''Andrew" to "Mr. X", then i can also replace US to India, I guess.
Am I missing anything in my reasoning here?
Thanks for your cordial response.

AndrewN · Answer

All right, one more for the road. I think the issue is that you are trying to turn a question that relies on inductive reasoning into a logical syllogism instead. Again, the U.S. is just being held up as  an example  of a country that has done something,  not  as the one and only country that  can  do something. I think the question and answers are designed quite well, and I am positive that everything underwent thorough testing before ever reaching the test screen and a place in the OG Verbal Review thereafter. You are welcome to disagree, but it is always important to anchor your discussion of a question to the question itself, and I guess I am at a loss as to what else you would think to choose if not choice (D).

- Andrew

akshaygundeti · Answer

I marked the correct choice, but I failed to understand the last sentence in the passage. Does it mean the # of oil barrels saved per day was 13 million since 1973 or # of barrels saved in total were 13 million since 1973. Although from the sentence it seems like it is # of barrels saved per day, 13 million barrels is a huge number. Maybe I didn't understand the way the sentence is structured.

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   EMPOWERgmatVerbal   Bunuel

KarishmaB · Answer

The number of barrels of oil being saved per day ... is now 13 million.
So 13 million is the number of barrels saved every day because of the improvements.

Suneha123 · Answer

Hi,

What is the importance of second sentence in the passage? Can't we get the conclusion even without it?

GMATNinja · Answer

Yes, you can properly draw the conclusion in (D) without the second sentence of the passage. That's completely acceptable -- the question doesn't specify that  every  piece of information in the passage must be used to support the conclusion. So long as the conclusion can be properly drawn from the information provided, we're golden. (D) is the only answer choice that fits in this case, so (D) is the winner.

For whatever it's worth, this doesn't happen very often on GMAT CR questions. In most cases, you'll need to think about the passage in its entirety, and won't have the luxury of ignoring entire sentences. This one is a rare exception.

I hope that helps!

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

Premise #1: US  economy has experienced  33%  growth 
Premise #2: US  energy consumption has not increased  in the same period
Premise #3: Now, 13 million barrels of oil is being saved per day

If the information above is correct, which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn on the basis of it?
 
A. It is more difficult to find new sources of oil than to institute new energy-conservation measures.  -  the passage is not at all concerned about finding new sources of oil  
B. Oil imports cannot be reduced unless energy consumption does not grow at all.  -  Correlation = Causation error here.   
C. A reduction in the consumption of gasoline was the reason overall energy consumption remained steady . -  The passage does not mention this 
 D. It is possible for an economy to grow without consuming additional energy. - based on premise #1 and premise #2, we can infer (D). Hence,  (D) is the right answer choice
   
E. The development of nontraditional energy sources will make it possible for the United States economy to grow even faster.  -  the passage is not concerned with 'non-traditional' energy sources.

Thekingmaker · Answer

it's easiest question i have ever encountered in my whole Gmat prep the direct corelation being we have to understand is that no amount of energy consumption happened and the economy temendously there is no possiblity IMO D

sahuanamika · Answer

From 1973 to 1986, growth in the United States economy was over 33 percent, while the percent growth in United States energy consumption was zero. The number of barrels of oil being saved per day by energy-efficiency improvements made since 1973 is now 13 million.

Inference :
Changes happened from 1973 - 1986
1. U.S economy grew over 33%
2. percent growth energy consumption was zero

Conclusion: economy can grow without increase in energy consumption as we can see every year 1 million consumption.

D. It is possible for an economy to grow without consuming additional energy.
This is only correct.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

From 1973 to 1986, growth in the United States economy was over 33 per

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

From 1973 to 1986, growth in the United States economy was over 33 per

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards