Last visit was: 18 Sep 2024, 08:39 It is currently 18 Sep 2024, 08:39
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# July 19 If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted b

Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [15]
Given Kudos: 27
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2018
Posts: 348
Own Kudos [?]: 479 [1]
Given Kudos: 94
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2019
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Posts: 997
Own Kudos [?]: 867 [1]
Given Kudos: 1005
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
645 Q82 V81 DI82
GMAT 1: 430 Q31 V19
GMAT 2: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 3: 660 Q48 V33
GPA: 3.26
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2024
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [2]
Given Kudos: 48
Re: July 19 If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted b [#permalink]
2
Kudos
For 3.2 I differ my opinion:
They did not mention it what time the article is published.
So considering approximate 4 decades are left is a bit vague for me.
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Posts: 14
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 17
GMAT Focus 1:
615 Q85 V84 DI73
Re: July 19 If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted b [#permalink]
Jaygmat007
For 3.2 I differ my opinion:
They did not mention it what time the article is published.
So considering approximate 4 decades are left is a bit vague for me.
­I think so too, chetan2u any comments ?
Intern
Joined: 17 Feb 2024
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [1]
Given Kudos: 89
Re: July 19 If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted b [#permalink]
1
Kudos
BottomJee

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Question 1.1 Explanation: The answer is No. The statement in question is not necessarily true, as we do not know what politicians “usually’ do, and therefore this is not a valid conclusion just based on the information provided.

Question 1.2 Explanation: The answer is No. In article 3, we are told that “environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem.” However, if some oil companies are not following the safest procedures, we cannot infer that safety standards have fallen among oil companies due to the increase in worldwide demand. Perhaps those oil companies are choosing not to follow the safest procedures for other reasons.

Question 1.3 Explanation: The answer is No. In Article 2, Dr. Goodman is shown to have little faith in the public as the solution to the global warming issue, since the public has continually shot down measures it considered “costly.” Dr. Goodman is primarily interested in seeing a reduction in fossil fuel usage. However, we cannot infer based on the information in the article alone that she would also be interested or not interested in requiring oil companies to have better safety and ecological regulations.

Question 2.1 Explanation: The answer is No. We cannot infer any direct links between the actions of the oil companies and the votes cast by the public.

Question 2.2 Explanation: The answer is No. In article 3, we are told that an increase in demand for crude oil “has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem.” We cannot infer a cause/effect relationship between two things just because they happened at about the same time. At about the same time that demand for crude oil increased, companies began to cut corners. Although it is likely that the two are related, we cannot infer causality based on mere correlation.

Question 2.3 Explanation: The answer is Yes. Article 2 states that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies.

Question 3.1 Explanation: The answer is No. The increased demand is implied to have caused the companies to drill more in the Gulf, but there is nothing in the articles to indicate that more supply would mean the companies would have better safety and environmental regulations.

Question 3.2 Explanation: The answer is Yes. The article states that in the past decade, the price rose 500%. There are approximately four decades until 2055, so the price can be expected to increase 4 x 500% = 2000% from where it is now, if current trends continue.
RO1: S2- ­“environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem.” hence they have inc their speed to meet the demand which in turn has led to lowering of safety standards, what am i missing?
again in RO2: S2- “has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem.” clear cause/effect relationship as they happened concurrently - demand for crude oil increased, companies began to cut corners.
RO3: S1- " decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico....than the well-being of the ecosystem." clearly ecosystem is getting hampered because of inreased extraction which is due to high demand, which in turn happened as a result of less supply. REVERSE the statemant and in increase in supply will reduce the adverse environmental impact of the Gulf
RO3: S2- I am assuming there are three decades left until 2055 and NOT 4 and correct me if i do not understand the mathematics here as the questions asks how much it will be from now and it increases 500% in a decade so it won't be 500*3, the effect will be getting compounded, which is 6 times in a decade so 216 times in 30 years