[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/check_new_recommended_questions.php on line 37: Undefined array key "last_recommended_questions_epoch"
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/check_new_recommended_questions.php on line 41: Undefined array key "last_recommended_questions_epoch"
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co : Critical Reasoning (CR)
Last visit was: 20 Jul 2024, 02:58 It is currently 20 Jul 2024, 02:58
Close
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
Your Progress

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 325
Own Kudos [?]: 20662 [89]
Given Kudos: 61
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Jan 2020
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 1793 [40]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Send PM
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 290
Own Kudos [?]: 403 [5]
Given Kudos: 120
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Send PM
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 325
Own Kudos [?]: 20662 [1]
Given Kudos: 61
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
gmatt1476 wrote:
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from coal companies to less polluting energy companies. And here's why. Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it.

Therese: I'm not sure we should do what you suggest. As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. Demand for the cheaper, dirtier energy forms will then increase, as will the stock values of the companies that produce them.

Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


CR03161.01


Official Explanation

Argument Construction

Which one of the answer options best describes the response of Therese to Mansour?

Mansour advocates that Therese and he should replace their investments in coal companies with investments in companies producing less polluting energy. He suggests this because there is both an increasing demand for and increasing supply of such energy.

However, Therese responds that as demand for clean energy increases, its prices will increase. These higher prices will increase demand for cheaper, dirtier energy. This will boost the stock prices of companies producing such dirty energy, for example, coal. The point of Therese's response is that since the stock prices of coal companies and other companies producing dirty energy will likely increase, investments in these stocks will increase in value. This provides a financial reason not to do what Mansour advocates.

A. Therese does not advocate that consumers use polluting energy; she simply predicts that the stock values of producers of polluting energy are likely to increase as the prices of polluting energy decrease relative to the prices of non-polluting energy.

B. Therese does not imply that there exist non-polluting uses of coal; in fact, she appears to agree with Mansour that coal is a dirty form of energy.

C. There is nothing to indicate that Therese disagrees with Mansour regarding whether consumers are increasingly demanding non-polluting energy.

D. Correct. This accurately captures the main point of Therese's response to Mansour: she provides a particular reason that maintaining their current investments could be a better option.

E. Therese does not directly address the question of whether this assumption of Mansour's is correct. Even if she implies that Mansour's assumption is incorrect, this is not the main point of her response to Mansour.

The correct answer is D.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Status:resting for now
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 105 [0]
Given Kudos: 126
Location: Germany
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
gmatt1476 wrote:
Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

Prethinking: She says that demand will grow for coal, as soon as renewable energy becomes more expensive. Therefore, she does not say his plan is faulty or smth, just that there is something he has not seen/mentioned.

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand

CR03161.01


A): They both are not talking about consumers concerns in general. INCORRECT

B): They also do not argue whether a use of coal is not as much polluting. INCORRECT

C): She disagrees with Mansour, yes.........but read on. She does not disagree with the claim that consumers will continue to demand non polluting energy. She just says that demand for coal will grow again at a certain point. INCORRECT

D): Although this answer is more reserved than C) and E), it does not do the same mistake. In the end, Therese just says that they should stay with the current strategy, because Mansour did not consider something. CORRECT

E): She does not criticize the point that supply increases with demand. She just says demand for coal will grow at a certain point. INCORRECT
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2018
Posts: 51
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 135
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
gmatt1476 wrote:
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from coal companies to less polluting energy companies. And here's why. Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it.

Therese: I'm not sure we should do what you suggest. As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. Demand for the cheaper, dirtier energy forms will then increase, as will the stock values of the companies that produce them.

Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


CR03161.01


AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz

I still can't figure it out why option A is not the answer.

If Therese responds by saying that since price of more polluting energy will cost relatively less, demand for less polluting energy will increase and so will the stock prices.

With this reasoning-price/demand Dynamics & clearly stating that demand of more polluting energy will get increase since price will be relatively less- I feel author is assuming that people prefer low cost energy.-

So why option A is wrong

Posted from my mobile device
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Posts: 237
Own Kudos [?]: 398 [1]
Given Kudos: 165
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
gmatassassin88 wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from coal companies to less polluting energy companies. And here's why. Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it.

Therese: I'm not sure we should do what you suggest. As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. Demand for the cheaper, dirtier energy forms will then increase, as will the stock values of the companies that produce them.

Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


CR03161.01


AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz

I still can't figure it out why option A is not the answer.

If Therese responds by saying that since price of more polluting energy will cost relatively less, demand for less polluting energy will increase and so will the stock prices.

With this reasoning-price/demand Dynamics & clearly stating that demand of more polluting energy will get increase since price will be relatively less- I feel author is assuming that people prefer low cost energy.-

So why option A is wrong

Posted from my mobile device


Therese doesn't advocate that consumers do anything. Therese merely predicts that consumers will use cheaper forms of energy. The specific choice of words matters, and this word "advocating" is an absolute killer where A is concerned.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2018
Posts: 51
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [3]
Given Kudos: 135
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
3
Kudos
AnthonyRitz wrote:
gmatassassin88 wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from coal companies to less polluting energy companies. And here's why. Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it.

Therese: I'm not sure we should do what you suggest. As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. Demand for the cheaper, dirtier energy forms will then increase, as will the stock values of the companies that produce them.

Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


CR03161.01


AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz

I still can't figure it out why option A is not the answer.

If Therese responds by saying that since price of more polluting energy will cost relatively less, demand for less polluting energy will increase and so will the stock prices.

With this reasoning-price/demand Dynamics & clearly stating that demand of more polluting energy will get increase since price will be relatively less- I feel author is assuming that people prefer low cost energy.-

So why option A is wrong

Posted from my mobile device


Therese doesn't advocate that consumers do anything. Therese merely predicts that consumers will use cheaper forms of energy. The specific choice of words matters, and this word "advocating" is an absolute killer where A is concerned.


AnthonyRitz

After reading your explanation, I read the argument again to gain clarity. However ,

Firstly as per my understanding: usage of 'Will' shows 'certainity' and when Therese is certain about choice of people , he is advocating/supporting what people will/certainly go for.

So this is where I am faltering.Could you please help how to infer Therese is making 'prediction'

Secondly: Question stem is asking 'how' Therese is responding i.e 'by doing' what?

My understanding: by stating reason 'that people will demand less expensive energy'.

option E does not talk about the reason rather gives the main point of Therese response that ' shifting is not a good idea'

Kindly clarify both such issues
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Posts: 237
Own Kudos [?]: 398 [2]
Given Kudos: 165
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
gmatassassin88 wrote:
AnthonyRitz wrote:
gmatassassin88 wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from coal companies to less polluting energy companies. And here's why. Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it.

Therese: I'm not sure we should do what you suggest. As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. Demand for the cheaper, dirtier energy forms will then increase, as will the stock values of the companies that produce them.

Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


CR03161.01


AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz

I still can't figure it out why option A is not the answer.

If Therese responds by saying that since price of more polluting energy will cost relatively less, demand for less polluting energy will increase and so will the stock prices.

With this reasoning-price/demand Dynamics & clearly stating that demand of more polluting energy will get increase since price will be relatively less- I feel author is assuming that people prefer low cost energy.-

So why option A is wrong

Posted from my mobile device


Therese doesn't advocate that consumers do anything. Therese merely predicts that consumers will use cheaper forms of energy. The specific choice of words matters, and this word "advocating" is an absolute killer where A is concerned.


AnthonyRitz

After reading your explanation, I read the argument again to gain clarity. However ,

Firstly as per my understanding: usage of 'Will' shows 'certainity' and when Therese is certain about choice of people , he is advocating/supporting what people will/certainly go for.

So this is where I am faltering.Could you please help how to infer Therese is making 'prediction'

Secondly: Question stem is asking 'how' Therese is responding i.e 'by doing' what?

My understanding: by stating reason 'that people will demand less expensive energy'.

option E does not talk about the reason rather gives the main point of Therese response that ' shifting is not a good idea'

Kindly clarify both such issues


"advocate -- publicly recommend or support"

There is an aspect of "should" or "ought" to the idea of "advocating" something. This is totally not present when we merely predict that something will happen, or even when we express certainty that something will happen. So this has nothing to do with the degree of certainty here. Therese is simply not expressing any sort of recommendation or support about whether people should use less expensive forms of energy.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking about E, but it's definitely wrong, since Therese never questions the supply of nonpolluting energy.

As for the correct answer, D, Therese says "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest" and then explains how demand for dirtier, cheaper energies may be expected to increase and how the company's stock value may be expected to rebound if it stays the course. This definitely qualifies as "Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course."
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Posts: 230
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 139
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
AnthonyRitz

Could you please elaborate on (E) ?
I have no doubt that (D) is correct. If I understand correctly, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest." is the keyword (Therese doesn't agree to change investment plan)

But "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase" << I'm not sure that I interpret this phrase correctly.
1) Therese doesn't doubt that Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. She just topped up the idea that effect of the increase both supply and demand might have other effect.
or
2) Therese clearly doubted Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. Because, from the phrase "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase", it seems that demand will increase higher than supply. (When demand > supply, price will go up)
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Posts: 237
Own Kudos [?]: 398 [0]
Given Kudos: 165
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
Tanchat wrote:
AnthonyRitz

Could you please elaborate on (E) ?
I have no doubt that (D) is correct. If I understand correctly, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest." is the keyword (Therese doesn't agree to change investment plan)

But "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase" << I'm not sure that I interpret this phrase correctly.
1) Therese doesn't doubt that Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. She just topped up the idea that effect of the increase both supply and demand might have other effect.
or
2) Therese clearly doubted Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. Because, from the phrase "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase", it seems that demand will increase higher than supply. (When demand > supply, price will go up)


Tanchat,

This is a fair point! E says

Quote:
Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


You're right that there is some issue with the phrase "in line with demand" in answer E. If demand and supply both increase, but demand increases faster (and thus increases "relative to supply"), is demand increasing "in line with" supply or not? Even a consultation to the dictionary isn't totally helpful: "in line with" is defined as "in alignment or accordance with." My initial thought was "yes, they're both increasing, that's enough to be in line," but now... I'm unsure.

But let's cut the Gordian knot, so to speak. Focus on a different part of E. This answer says "providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption..." So even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that Therese doubted this assumption, what reason does she give for this doubt? I don't see one, so while you've convinced me that the latter part of E is at least debatable, the former part of E remains untenable in my eyes. What do you think?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Posts: 230
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 139
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
AnthonyRitz wrote:
Tanchat wrote:
AnthonyRitz

Could you please elaborate on (E) ?
I have no doubt that (D) is correct. If I understand correctly, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest." is the keyword (Therese doesn't agree to change investment plan)

But "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase" << I'm not sure that I interpret this phrase correctly.
1) Therese doesn't doubt that Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. She just topped up the idea that effect of the increase both supply and demand might have other effect.
or
2) Therese clearly doubted Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. Because, from the phrase "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase", it seems that demand will increase higher than supply. (When demand > supply, price will go up)


Tanchat,

This is a fair point! E says

Quote:
Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


You're right that there is some issue with the phrase "in line with demand" in answer E. If demand and supply both increase, but demand increases faster (and thus increases "relative to supply"), is demand increasing "in line with" supply or not? Even a consultation to the dictionary isn't totally helpful: "in line with" is defined as "in alignment or accordance with." My initial thought was "yes, they're both increasing, that's enough to be in line," but now... I'm unsure.

But let's cut the Gordian knot, so to speak. Focus on a different part of E. This answer says "providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption..." So even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that Therese doubted this assumption, what reason does she give for this doubt? I don't see one, so while you've convinced me that the latter part of E is at least debatable, the former part of E remains untenable in my eyes. What do you think?


Thank you for your response AnthonyRitz

I'm not sure that I correctly understand. Please, review my interpretation.

Mansour stated : Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it. --> Supply and Demand increase
Therese stated : As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. --> Therese didn't attack the assumption. Therese also stated that demand and supply still increased. But Therese just provided other effects from the increase of both demand and supply. Thus, Therese doesn't doubt the assumption and just provided her view about side-effect.

Is the above logic correct ?
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Posts: 237
Own Kudos [?]: 398 [1]
Given Kudos: 165
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Tanchat wrote:
AnthonyRitz wrote:
Tanchat wrote:
AnthonyRitz

Could you please elaborate on (E) ?
I have no doubt that (D) is correct. If I understand correctly, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest." is the keyword (Therese doesn't agree to change investment plan)

But "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase" << I'm not sure that I interpret this phrase correctly.
1) Therese doesn't doubt that Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. She just topped up the idea that effect of the increase both supply and demand might have other effect.
or
2) Therese clearly doubted Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand. Because, from the phrase "As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase", it seems that demand will increase higher than supply. (When demand > supply, price will go up)


Tanchat,

This is a fair point! E says

Quote:
Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


You're right that there is some issue with the phrase "in line with demand" in answer E. If demand and supply both increase, but demand increases faster (and thus increases "relative to supply"), is demand increasing "in line with" supply or not? Even a consultation to the dictionary isn't totally helpful: "in line with" is defined as "in alignment or accordance with." My initial thought was "yes, they're both increasing, that's enough to be in line," but now... I'm unsure.

But let's cut the Gordian knot, so to speak. Focus on a different part of E. This answer says "providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption..." So even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that Therese doubted this assumption, what reason does she give for this doubt? I don't see one, so while you've convinced me that the latter part of E is at least debatable, the former part of E remains untenable in my eyes. What do you think?


Thank you for your response AnthonyRitz

I'm not sure that I correctly understand. Please, review my interpretation.

Mansour stated : Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it. --> Supply and Demand increase
Therese stated : As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. --> Therese didn't attack the assumption. Therese also stated that demand and supply still increased. But Therese just provided other effects from the increase of both demand and supply. Thus, Therese doesn't doubt the assumption and just provided her view about side-effect.

Is the above logic correct ?


Tanchat,

Your interpretation is a plausible reading, and it matches my initial view of this question.

I do want to say, though, that upon further reading I am unsure whether Therese's comment "demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply" disputes the idea that supply and demand increase "in line with" one another. (Maybe some other tutor can weigh in on this point.) So I now prefer not to rely on that reasoning to eliminate E.

There's another problem, though. E describes "Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand." Now, if "in line with" simply means "both increase" then Mansour does say it, but Therese doesn't disagree. But if "in line with" means something more, like they're increasing at the same rate without one outstripping the other, then Mansour never actually made such an assumption. He only said "Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it." So no matter how we interpret "supply [increases] in line with demand," there's no clear dispute here.

But beyond that, in my present view, the simplest and strongest reason to eliminate E is that E says "providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption"; even if Therese doubts Mansour's assumption (again, debatable), she never "provides a reason" for her doubt. That, ultimately, is the biggest problem with E.

I hope this helps!
Manager
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
Posts: 219
Own Kudos [?]: 139 [0]
Given Kudos: 456
Location: United States (MI)
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
gmatt1476 wrote:
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from coal companies to less polluting energy companies. And here's why. Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it.

Therese: I'm not sure we should do what you suggest. As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. Demand for the cheaper, dirtier energy forms will then increase, as will the stock values of the companies that produce them.

Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


CR03161.01



Can anyone please post a detailed explanation not just the question but for "method of reasoning" topic? If you have some strategies that I can read through, it will be much appreciated. I am not doing well on the method of reasoning questions.

Coming back to the argument (s) in question - I do not see how E is incorrect.
What is Mansour's assumption? Customers increasing demand for nonpolluting energy --> So, Companies supplying it. Therefore, assumes demand will keep coming in and driving supplies.

Therese starts right by doubting Mansour's claim and then goes on to provide a reason as to why she thinks Mansour's assumption might be incorrect.

Reason - Demand will keep increasing, but supply may not be able to meet it. Consequence - increase in price! Therefore, again the demand for polluting energy will increase eventually leading to better stock performance of traditional energy companies.

I don't understand how D is correct. Had it been an assumption question, I would have agreed. Since Therese said, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest", the assumption is that she may think sticking to the existing strategy is a better option. How does it answer the method of reasoning question?

Or, as I mentioned before, my logic may be flawed. So, please help me with materials to read through. Thank you.

AnthonyRitz KarishmaB MartyMurray GMATNinjaTwo
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 1022
Own Kudos [?]: 2055 [1]
Given Kudos: 88
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Engineer1 wrote:
Can anyone please post a detailed explanation not just the question but for "method of reasoning" topic? If you have some strategies that I can read through, it will be much appreciated. I am not doing well on the method of reasoning questions.

Coming back to the argument (s) in question - I do not see how E is incorrect.
What is Mansour's assumption? Customers increasing demand for nonpolluting energy --> So, Companies supplying it. Therefore, assumes demand will keep coming in and driving supplies.

Therese starts right by doubting Mansour's claim and then goes on to provide a reason as to why she thinks Mansour's assumption might be incorrect.

Here's choice (E):

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand

Key to getting Method of Reasoning questions correct is paying attention to the entire answer choice.

In this case, choice (E) starts off OK, but the second part of (E) is incorrect. After all, Therese doesn't provide a reason to doubt that "supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand." Take a careful look. Mansour never asserts or assumes that supply will increase in line with demand. He just says that supply will increase, and Therese doesn't provide any reason to believe that supply won't increase in line with demand. Rather, she simply indicates that it won't without providing a reason.

So, (E) does not accurately describe Therese's method of reasoning.

Quote:
I don't understand how D is correct. Had it been an assumption question, I would have agreed. Since Therese said, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest", the assumption is that she may think sticking to the existing strategy is a better option. How does it answer the method of reasoning question?

Here's choice (D):

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

The idea that Therese thinks sticking to the existing strategy may be a better option is not an assumption. Rather it directly follows from what she said. After all, in saying that she's not sure that they should do what Mansour suggests, she is suggesting that they "leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course," since if they don't do what Mansour suggests they will be leaving their energy investments unchanged.

Basically, (D) captures what she does in a reversed way.

Thus, (D) is the correct answer.

So, the two key takeaways are that, in Method of Reasoning questions, paying attention to the entire choice is key and that the reverse of a statement can be a valid inference that is basically the equivalent of what that statement communicates.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
Posts: 219
Own Kudos [?]: 139 [0]
Given Kudos: 456
Location: United States (MI)
Send PM
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
Thank you, MartyMurray for the explanation. I read through the question stem few times and understood where I went wrong. Yes, Therese does not really provide a reason. D makes much more sense. Sure, I will try next time by paying attention to the answer choices. It's just that even the MGMAT strategy guides do not have this as a specific category. And when I searched the web, I could find some info about it only related to LSAT so far. But if I am not wrong, I have seen this category of questions quite a few times on GMAT official practice sessions as well.

MartyMurray wrote:
Engineer1 wrote:
Can anyone please post a detailed explanation not just the question but for "method of reasoning" topic? If you have some strategies that I can read through, it will be much appreciated. I am not doing well on the method of reasoning questions.

Coming back to the argument (s) in question - I do not see how E is incorrect.
What is Mansour's assumption? Customers increasing demand for nonpolluting energy --> So, Companies supplying it. Therefore, assumes demand will keep coming in and driving supplies.

Therese starts right by doubting Mansour's claim and then goes on to provide a reason as to why she thinks Mansour's assumption might be incorrect.

Here's choice (E):

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand

Key to getting Method of Reasoning questions correct is paying attention to the entire answer choice.

In this case, choice (E) starts off OK, but the second part of (E) is incorrect. After all, Therese doesn't provide a reason to doubt that "supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand." Take a careful look. Mansour never asserts or assumes that supply will increase in line with demand. He just says that supply will increase, and Therese doesn't provide any reason to believe that supply won't increase in line with demand. Rather, she simply indicates that it won't without providing a reason.

So, (E) does not accurately describe Therese's method of reasoning.

Quote:
I don't understand how D is correct. Had it been an assumption question, I would have agreed. Since Therese said, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest", the assumption is that she may think sticking to the existing strategy is a better option. How does it answer the method of reasoning question?

Here's choice (D):

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

The idea that Therese thinks sticking to the existing strategy may be a better option is not an assumption. Rather it directly follows from what she said. After all, in saying that she's not sure that they should do what Mansour suggests, she is suggesting that they "leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course," since if they don't do what Mansour suggests they will be leaving their energy investments unchanged.

Basically, (D) captures what she does in a reversed way.

Thus, (D) is the correct answer.

So, the two key takeaways are that, in Method of Reasoning questions, paying attention to the entire choice is key and that the reverse of a statement can be a valid inference that is basically the equivalent of what that statement communicates.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15125
Own Kudos [?]: 66742 [1]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Engineer1 wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from coal companies to less polluting energy companies. And here's why. Consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy, and energy companies are increasingly supplying it.

Therese: I'm not sure we should do what you suggest. As demand for nonpolluting energy increases relative to supply, its price will increase, and then the more polluting energy will cost relatively less. Demand for the cheaper, dirtier energy forms will then increase, as will the stock values of the companies that produce them.

Therese responds to Mansour's proposal by doing which of the following?

A. Advocating that consumers use less expensive forms of energy

B. Implying that not all uses of coal for energy are necessarily polluting

C. Disagreeing with Mansour's claim that consumers are increasingly demanding nonpolluting energy

D. Suggesting that leaving their existing energy investments unchanged could be the better course

E. Providing a reason to doubt Mansour's assumption that supply of nonpolluting energy will increase in line with demand


CR03161.01



Can anyone please post a detailed explanation not just the question but for "method of reasoning" topic? If you have some strategies that I can read through, it will be much appreciated. I am not doing well on the method of reasoning questions.

Coming back to the argument (s) in question - I do not see how E is incorrect.
What is Mansour's assumption? Customers increasing demand for nonpolluting energy --> So, Companies supplying it. Therefore, assumes demand will keep coming in and driving supplies.

Therese starts right by doubting Mansour's claim and then goes on to provide a reason as to why she thinks Mansour's assumption might be incorrect.

Reason - Demand will keep increasing, but supply may not be able to meet it. Consequence - increase in price! Therefore, again the demand for polluting energy will increase eventually leading to better stock performance of traditional energy companies.

I don't understand how D is correct. Had it been an assumption question, I would have agreed. Since Therese said, "I'm not sure we should do what you suggest", the assumption is that she may think sticking to the existing strategy is a better option. How does it answer the method of reasoning question?

Or, as I mentioned before, my logic may be flawed. So, please help me with materials to read through. Thank you.

AnthonyRitz KarishmaB MartyMurray GMATNinjaTwo


I have a LIVE Class coming up on Method questions on 13th Dec. You can join it for free through the Trial package by registering on my website: https://anaprep.com
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 1022
Own Kudos [?]: 2055 [1]
Given Kudos: 88
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Engineer1 wrote:
Thank you, MartyMurray for the explanation. I read through the question stem few times and understood where I went wrong. Yes, Therese does not really provide a reason. D makes much more sense. Sure, I will try next time by paying attention to the answer choices. It's just that even the MGMAT strategy guides do not have this as a specific category. And when I searched the web, I could find some info about it only related to LSAT so far. But if I am not wrong, I have seen this category of questions quite a few times on GMAT official practice sessions as well.

TTP has a good chapter on Method of Reasoning questions. You could sign up for the 5-day trial and go through that chapter and cover some other topics as well.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
Posts: 219
Own Kudos [?]: 139 [1]
Given Kudos: 456
Location: United States (MI)
Send PM
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Thank you KarishmaB and MartyMurray.
I signed up for the TTP trial. Karishma, I'll check the time on your website and will try to attend, if the time difference permits. Thanks to both of you once again.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Mansour: We should both plan to change some of our investments from co [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts