In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago.
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration.
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade.
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

Source: LSAT


_________________

LSAT CR is driving me mad

chetan2u u go straight to the heart of my problem
i got u point thx a lot!
_________________

LSAT CR is driving me mad

Hi,
I was hesitating between A and E and wrongly chose A

So why A is wrong?? I think maybe because the consumption of imported oil may be not correlated with the consumption of domestic oil and therefore the amount of oil extractable muss decrease -> Not resolve the paradox
But I am not sure of this assumption to make this statement wrong, if anyone could help me..

Simplify the argument given -

1. the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.
2. No new fields have been discovered.

However,
the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields is at the same level

We need to explain the last statement.

A - Incorrect.
Not relevant because we know from point #1 that the consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

B - Incorrect.
Okay. But still we know that the consumption of domestically produced oil has increased. Hence, logically, the amount of oil considered extractable must reduce.

C - Incorrect.
Does not add any new information as we already know that no new fields of consequence have been discovered.
Hence, this does not explain the why amount of oil considered extractable is at the same level.

D - Incorrect.
Reduction in price --> leads to more consumption --> worsens the paradox

E - Correct answer.
this explains why even though the consumption of oil has increased, there has been no decline in the amount of oil considered extractable. Because oil that wasn't earlier considered extractable is now extractable.
_________________

For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal

[quote="YangYichen"]In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago.
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration.
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade.
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

Source: LSAT

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States. This simply states that the consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil. This also means that the consumption of domestic oil has increased (not more than imported oil but has increased definitely). If this is the case we expect the level to be lower than what it was a decade ago
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago. Again, it says conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption. This also means that there has been some consumption of the oil. If that is the case, we expect the oil level to be lower than what it was a decade ago
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration. Again, oil exploration in the United States has slowed not stopped. So we expect the level of oil to be lower than what it was 10 years ago
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade. Opposite to what we want. If the price has fallen, we expect the consumption to increase
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable. Here we are given something different. If oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable, then the extra oil that is obtain is what was used in the past 10 years.

adkikani , You wrote:

If same volume of oil is available for extraction, and if no additional oil fields
are discovered, how could yearly consumption of domestically produced oil
. . . HAVE INCREASED without a simultaneous decrease in available oil levels [my words]?

Whoops. You are answering the wrong question. We do not need to explain the increase in consumption.

We need to explain this apparent paradox: increased consumption of oil should have decreased oil reserve levels. Oil reserve levels did not drop.

How can we consume more oil, but have the same amount of oil in reserve? That discrepancy needs to be explained.

I am not sure what went wrong.

Why is the "same volume of oil" available for extraction? There should be LESS.

Option D does not explain the disparity. Option D probably makes things worse.

1) A price drop does not explain the seeming contradiction between escalated consumption and oil reserves whose levels stayed the same although no new oil fields were discovered.

A lower price cannot explain how available reserve levels can be the same as 10 years ago. Price changes do not create more extractable oil.

2) Option D makes things worse.
If anything -- you are correct about this part -- decreased price equals increased consumption . . .

But a greater increase in consumption should FURTHER decrease reserve levels.
A price drop makes the discrepancy worse (harder to explain).

Increased consumption ... no new oil fields ... but proven oil reserve levels have not dropped? Have stayed the same?

Which answer explains this seeming paradox?

(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

The same fields with the same oil have been altered; technology made the fields able to produce more oil.
That increased production compensated for, or offset, the increase in consumption.

This language is the key to the whole question: "proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields . . ."
When LSAC people write definitions that seem incidental or ancillary, pay very close attention to the language.
LSAC folks get specific with language for a reason.
In this case, the reason was to give us a BIG HINT about how to reconcile what seemed like contradictory events.
"Extractability" is the only part of the contradiction that has "give" (that has flexibility, that contains the potential for change).

Hope that helps.
_________________

___________________________________________________________________
For what are we born if not to aid one another?
-- Ernest Hemingway