GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Nov 2018, 05:44

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
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • All GMAT Club Tests are Free and open on November 22nd in celebration of Thanksgiving Day!

     November 22, 2018

     November 22, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open November 22nd to celebrate Thanksgiving Day! Access will be available from 0:01 AM to 11:59 PM, Pacific Time (USA)
  • Free lesson on number properties

     November 23, 2018

     November 23, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Practice the one most important Quant section - Integer properties, and rapidly improve your skills.

Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 169
Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2013, 03:44
2
gmat blows wrote:
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above.

A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.
C) The impact of offshore operations on the environments can be controlled by careful management.
D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshores.


Key steps to come to the answer:

1. Clearly understand the Conclusion and the premise :
Conclusion - To reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.
Premise - Offshore oil drill operations have an unavoidable risk of oil spill but importing on oil tankers carries an even greater risk.

Think of how the conclusion is reached on the basis of the premise and what assumptions can be made.
Assumption 1 : By investing more on offshore operations risk can be reduced.

If we somehow break this assumption then that will give us the correct answer.
If some answer choice gives us that investing in Oil tankers will be easy and will reduce risk then that will be the correct answer choice and A is exactly that.
Rest all answer choices are either irrelevant or strengthening the conclusion.

Kudos me if you like the post !!!!!!!!!!!!
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 113
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Dec 2013, 23:49
Only choice A talks about reduced risk of spill by importing oil on tankers, thereby weakening the conclusion of the arguement. Hence it is my answer choice.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks :-)

"Pay attention to every detail"

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Work hard in silence, let success make the noise
Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 540 Q50 V15
GMAT 2: 640 Q50 V27
GPA: 3.11
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Dec 2013, 00:49
IMO A.
A - Weakens.
B,C - Strengthen.
D,E - Unrelated to the conclusion.
_________________

Sahil Chaudhary
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "+1 KUDOS" icon.
My IELTS 7.5 Experience
From 540 to 640...Done with GMAT!!!
http://www.sahilchaudhary007.blogspot.com

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2014
Posts: 3
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2014, 06:58
In the premise it is stated, Offshore oil-drilling operations entail "an unavoidable risk of an oil spill"
It means no matter how much you invest in off-shore drilling, you can only reduce the risk, not minimize it to zero.

Now if by some means we can prove that risk of oil spill in case of tankers is reduced and so that the risk in tankers is less than risk in off-shore drilling then we can make the conclusion less believable.

Choice A does that.

Thanks
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 539
Concentration: International Business, Technology
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2015, 21:39
1
hello everyone ,

can someone please advise on why option A is correct ?
A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
so lets say , originally, there were 50% chance of oil spill in offshore drilling and 80% chances of oil spill from tankers.
now after redesign tankers has lesser risk but lesser than what ?? if it is less than 50% i.e. lesser than oil spill during oil drilling ,
then yes , this option makes more sense. but, in original state we have to assume that tanker carries less risk than oil drilling .

let me know please..WaterFlowsUp , PiyushK , Narenn
_________________

Thanks,
Lucky

_______________________________________________________
Kindly press the Image to appreciate my post !! :-)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 75
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2015, 16:24
Request you not to write your queries/answers/opinions in question window. It prevents ppl from analysing the question. The whole purpose of GMAT Club forum goes wasted by doing so.
Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 382
Location: France
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
WE: Real Estate (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2015, 03:52
Lucky2783 wrote:
hello everyone ,

can someone please advise on why option A is correct ?
A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
so lets say , originally, there were 50% chance of oil spill in offshore drilling and 80% chances of oil spill from tankers.
now after redesign tankers has lesser risk but lesser than what ?? if it is less than 50% i.e. lesser than oil spill during oil drilling ,
then yes , this option makes more sense. but, in original state we have to assume that tanker carries less risk than oil drilling .

let me know please..WaterFlowsUp , PiyushK , Narenn


I guess my answer is late but anyway,

This is a conditional reasoning question (LR Bible). Whenever there is a condition in the conclusion of a weaken question, you have to prove that the condition is not necessary.

Our conclusion here is : TO REDUCE RISK... WE MUST INVEST IN OFFSHORE
So before you look at answer choices you can weaken the conclusion by saying: investing in offshore is NOT NECESSARY to reduce risk.

Now you can look at answer choices
Answer A clearly tells you that you can reduce the risk of an oil spill without having to invest in offshore. That's your answer
_________________

New Application Tracker : update your school profiles instantly!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 30
Schools: NUS '20
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Dec 2015, 05:05
Hello

I have a small concern with A => The way the argument is structured, it says:
Premise: Offshore Drill Ops (ODO) are risky but importing oil tankers (IOT) entails an even greater risk per barrel
Conclusion: To be safe without limiting use, we should invest more in ODO vs. IOT

Now if we look at A i.e. "Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill" --> Here, for sure we see that the risk is diminished but since the premise and conclusion both are of the comparative nature, we must have a reason that forces us to believe that with the change in design, the risk will be lower in comparison to ODO. A simply states that the risk is lowered but we are still not sure if the redesign sufficiently helps us resolve the issue at hand (i.e. Risk for IOT<Risk for ODO)

With this, I was quite confused b/w A and D (D involves external context). Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks



asimov wrote:
A

The argument is for curtailing the risk of oil spills. Only A address the risk. E does not address the argument.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 794
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Dec 2015, 06:49
rsaahil90 wrote:
Hello

I have a small concern with A => The way the argument is structured, it says:
Premise: Offshore Drill Ops (ODO) are risky but importing oil tankers (IOT) entails an even greater risk per barrel
Conclusion: To be safe without limiting use, we should invest more in ODO vs. IOT

Now if we look at A i.e. "Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill" --> Here, for sure we see that the risk is diminished but since the premise and conclusion both are of the comparative nature, we must have a reason that forces us to believe that with the change in design, the risk will be lower in comparison to ODO. A simply states that the risk is lowered but we are still not sure if the redesign sufficiently helps us resolve the issue at hand (i.e. Risk for IOT<Risk for ODO)

With this, I was quite confused b/w A and D (D involves external context). Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks


I agree that it would be nice to have some idea of the degree to which the tankers can be improved, but by process of elimination A is the only option that weakens the argument to any degree. It may not destroy the conclusion, but it does absolutely weaken it. D, on the other hand, gives us information that we can't evaluate because we don't know the impact of oil on the ocean floor - maybe the best kind of oil spill is one that only impacts the ocean floor and not the surface...

KW
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile



Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8574
Location: Pune, India
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2015, 19:55
2
rsaahil90 wrote:
Hello

I have a small concern with A => The way the argument is structured, it says:
Premise: Offshore Drill Ops (ODO) are risky but importing oil tankers (IOT) entails an even greater risk per barrel
Conclusion: To be safe without limiting use, we should invest more in ODO vs. IOT

Now if we look at A i.e. "Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill" --> Here, for sure we see that the risk is diminished but since the premise and conclusion both are of the comparative nature, we must have a reason that forces us to believe that with the change in design, the risk will be lower in comparison to ODO. A simply states that the risk is lowered but we are still not sure if the redesign sufficiently helps us resolve the issue at hand (i.e. Risk for IOT<Risk for ODO)

With this, I was quite confused b/w A and D (D involves external context). Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks



asimov wrote:
A

The argument is for curtailing the risk of oil spills. Only A address the risk. E does not address the argument.


Responding to a pm:

Premises:
Offshore ODOs entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill.
Importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil.

Conclusion:
If we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in ODO and import less oil on tankers.

Note that the premises tell us that oil spill risk is lower in ODOs and higher in tankers. The conclusion (which is a conditional) says that if we are to reduce the risk of oil spill, we should invest more in ODOs.
It seems perfectly reasonable conclusion, right? It says that taking only oil spill risk into account, we should use more ODOs. If I were to prethink on this, I wouldn't know how to weaken it.
But, we can weaken it because the conclusion says "we should invest more in ODOs" and not "use more ODOs". We don't know what effect "investing more" could have on the amount of risk involved in ODO and tankers.

Then we check the options.

(A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
Now, this does weaken our conclusion. If we invest in tankers, we could easily reduce the risk. Also, now the use of the word "presently" in our premises makes sense. The premises say clearly that presently the risk with tankers is higher. So it all fits in. Yes, we don't know whether with investment, the risk with tankers will go below the risk with ODOs but it clearly raises a question and hence weakens the conclusion.

(B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.
This, if anything, strengthens our conclusion.

(C) The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful management.
Irrelevant. We are only considering risk of oil spill.

(D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
Doesn't matter what they actually damage - the ocean floor or agricultural land or underground water etc. The risk of oil spill is less with ODOs and that is all we are concerned with.

(E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
Irrelevant. We are only considering risk of oil spill, not cost.

Answer (A)
_________________

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 >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 272
Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.76
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2015, 11:53
I fell for D but later realized its a shell game answer choice

we should be concerned only about risk of oil spillage whereas choice D talks about damage caused by Offshore drilling on ocean.

A is the correct choice as it weakens the conclusion
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 641
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2017, 02:12
2
This question is asking us to weaken the argument above. The argument’s conclusion is that we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers. Why? The premise of the argument is that oil tankers currently provide a bigger risk of spilling oil per barrel of oil. The question even has the diamond in the rough word “presently”, which hints that this situation could change. Without even looking at the answer choices, we can surmise that this situation isn’t set in stone and can therefore be changed.

In other words: how do we weaken the argument above? Well, what if it simply weren’t true anymore? The whole argument hinges on tankers being more risky. So if new information or new technology allowed the tankers to become safer than their offshore counterparts, the entire argument would fall apart. Let’s sift through the answers to see if any of these match our needs:

(A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.

Well this is pretty much exactly what we’re shooting for. Let’s see if any of the other choices make us reconsider this choice. (a choice that’s equivalent to Arnold’s classic: “come with me if you want to live”)

(B) Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.

This option is actually a 180°, as it strengthens the argument. We shouldn’t use tankers because tankers are more dangerous. Perfect strengthener. These options can be very tempting, as they are excellent answers, except for the lack of the word “not”, which is somewhat crucial in this case.

(C) The impact of offshore operations on the environment can be controlled by careful management.

Much like answer choice B, this actually strengthens the argument. At this point you might start wondering if you’re misinterpreting the question, as the majority of the choices seem to contradict your interpretation. This is a classic GMAT ploy, so don’t fall for it. This underscores again why making a prediction is crucial in these situations.

(D) Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.

This argument is discussing oil spills, so whether the environmental damage is limited to the seafloor or the seashells (and whether she sells seashells by the sea shore) is irrelevant to the issue.

(E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.

The economic argument is frequently a compelling one, especially for aspiring business students, but the focus is on the environment impact of oil spills, not whether I can get premium gas for a few cents cheaper. This is out of scope of the issue.

The correct answer is (A).
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Sep 2015
Posts: 5
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2017, 12:16
I was initially confused between A and D. But after second round of examination i chose A as D actually strengthens the argument.
In A since we know that we can fix the design of the tankers so that there is reduction in Oil Spills, the argument is clearly weakened. No other option is close to A
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 412
Premium Member
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2017, 21:59
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 17
Location: United States (NY)
Undergraduate: Stanford
GMAT 1: 700 Q44 V40
GMAT 2: 700 Q47 V40
WE: Asset Management (Consulting)
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Dec 2017, 19:40
Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

A. Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
B. Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.
C. The impact of offshore operations on the environments can be controlled by careful management.
D. Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
E. Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.

Four Step Process:
1. Identify question. It's a weaken.
2. Deconstruct argument.
- Conclusion: Let's invest in offshore drilling, rather than receive imported oil via tankers
- Premise: Imported oil via tankers carries greater risk than oil derived via offshore drilling

3. The correct answer provides a reason the argument doesn't work.

4.
A: Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.
- Hold

B. Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.
- Strengthen

C. The impact of offshore operations on the environments can be controlled by careful management.
- Strengthen

D. Offshore operations usually damage the ocean floor, but tankers rarely cause such damage.
- Hold

E. Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
- Irrelevant. We want a reason why oil tankers do not carry more risk vs offshore drilling

A vs D
A: This addresses the risk component
D: This is a reason not to receive oil via tankers, but it doesn't address the risk component without the use of an outside assumption

My selection: Choice A
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 108
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2018, 20:50
The question is very unclear. The conclusion is - we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers. OK. It means that NPV from investing in offshore operations will be higher than that of investing to oil tankers.

A) Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill
Easily - OK. Is "easily" means "fast" or "cheap"? What if it will cost 1 billion dollars? How is lesser a risk? Unclear
E) Importing oil on tankers is currently less expensive than drilling for it offshore.
Disagree that it is irrelevant. How less expensive? Is the amount of savings higher that cost of spill?

In general, how did you compare risk in money vs. investments in money?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 186
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2018, 10:23
We are only concerned with Oil spill and nothing else.

A address this promptly. If tankers can be redesigned to reduce the risk of oil spill, the conclusion is weakened.
D is a classic trap.We are not concerned about the damage. Similarly E also is not a relevant in this context.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the Gods, All the Heavens, and All the Hells lie within you.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 457
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Sep 2018, 06:13
This is a common pattern on GMAT
Whenever you come across a conclusion which has the word "must" ( an obligation /condition) , all you have to do is ask yourselves "is it a MUST? "

The conclusion is "if we want to reduce spill, we MUST invest more in.... "

But is it a must? The author assumes that there is no other way we can improve tankers. If he doesn't assume this then then the "must " part of the conclusion looses it's value.

So whenever you see "MUST" in the conclusion , know this that the author assumes that there is no other way you can achieve the goal via the less appreciated option.

Just look for an option which talks about ways one can improve the former way. Then, the conclusion "must" becomes "can".

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk &nbs [#permalink] 05 Sep 2018, 06:13

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 38 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.