Offshore Oil Drilling Opponent: The closing of the Colton Bay offshore

CR Strengthen Series: 3) Offshore Oil Drilling

Offshore Oil Drilling Opponent: The closing of the Colton Bay offshore drilling rig is a triumph for those who oppose offshore drilling. Not only does this closure represent a great step towards better protecting our environment, but it also carries with it a symbolic victory for the entire anti-drilling movement.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the opponent’s claim of symbolic victory for the anti-drilling movement?

Ⓐ Several other oil rigs have been closed in and immediately around Colton Bay.

Ⓑ Several new oil drilling regulations were recently passed as a result of the mounting pressure from offshore drilling opponents.

Ⓒ The economic incentive to leave the rig in service still existed at the time of the rig's closure.

Ⓓ Per barrel of oil drilled, the rig had a particularly high operating cost.

ⒺThe Colton Bay rig was nearing the end of its projected service life at the time of its closure.


Question Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Rig closure = Symbolic victory
Missing Information (assumption): There were no other likely factors behind the rig’s closure.
Goal: Find an option that supports the notion that there were no other key factors that led to the rig’s closure. That could be in the form of ELIMINATING other obvious factors for the closure.

Let’s see which option best achieves the goal:

Ⓐ This is a classic Out of Focus shift. Shifting to other rig closures doesn’t strengthen the claim that the reason for the closures is symbolic. Maybe there is another reason why all of these rigs closed and it has nothing to do with any sort of symbolic reason.

Ⓑ Is there any way to know that the passage of new oil drilling regulation is symbolic? Not necessarily. Perhaps this regulation addressed some common-sense safety related issues. This option does not support the case that the CLOSURE of the rigs was symbolic.

Ⓒ Yes! By ruling out the most obvious of all reasons to close the rig (economic), it dramatically reinforces the notion that the cause of the closure was symbolic, and not just a business decision. If the rigs were still economically productive for the operators at the time of the closure, then that would provide considerable support for the notion that the closure was symbolic. In causal arguments, the conclusion is strengthened by eliminated other obvious causes or factors.

Ⓓ This is a 180 option—the exact opposite of what we need. This option actually smacks the argument in the face by saying that there was another likely reason for the closure—this rig was less financially advantageous. That weakens the case that the closure was symbolic, and we need to strengthen it.

Ⓔ Just like D, this option flies in the face of the argument. If the plant were nearing the end of its service life anyway, would that really support that the closure was symbolic? This option shows that the operators were probably getting set to close the rig down anyhow.

◀ STRENGTHEN QUESTION SERIES Question 2 Automobile Collectors
▶ WEAKEN QUESTION SERIES Question 1 Barnsdall Museum of Art

C
Conclusion - The closing carries with it a symbolic victory for the entire anti-drilling movement

Ⓐ Several other oil rigs have been closed in and immediately around Colton Bay. - This doesn't make this one symbolic

Ⓑ Several new oil drilling regulations were recently passed as a result of the mounting pressure from offshore drilling opponents. - This doesn't concern this one

Ⓒ The economic incentive to leave the rig in service still existed at the time of the rig's closure. - This says that although economic incentive existed to keep the drill running, it was close bc of opposition by anti-drilling....correct answer

Ⓓ Per barrel of oil drilled, the rig had a particularly high operating cost. - Out of scope

ⒺThe Colton Bay rig was nearing the end of its projected service life at the time of its closure. - This weakens the conclusion

B Several new oil drilling regulations were recently passed as a result of the mounting pressure from offshore drilling opponents.

Ⓒ The economic incentive to leave the rig in service still existed at the time of the rig's closure.

I have a difference in opinion here.

In (C), even though the economic incentive persisted, it might be possible that perhaps the company operating the oil rig may have gone, for example, bankrupt or lacked sufficient operating capital to continually operate the rig. Therefore, to reduce the economic damage, they might have closed the rig. In such case, the actions of environmentalists did not play any role.

However, in (2), the phenomenon of new regulations coming into effect, can probably be attributed to the efforts and actions of environmentalists. Hence, this should be symbolic of environmentalists' efforts!

Can somebody share his/her ideas on the above hypotheses? Interesting question!

Hi pavankarwa123,

Happy to help. The argument comes down to whether the closure of the rig was a symbolic victory for those who oppose offshore oil drilling. B) tells us that those who oppose offshore oil drilling were able to win some legislative victories, but inherently what does that have to do with THIS particular rig closure? Nothing. Just because the opposition put on the pressure to get some legislation passed, how can we make the leap that their pressure also led to the closure of this rig? We can't. B) is what we'd call Out of the Logical Focus of the argument.

Option C), and the Bigger GMAT CR Picture:
On the GMAT, a classic way to strengthen a cause is to eliminate a likely alternative cause, and that's EXACTLY what C) does, and hence it's correct.

(for convenient reference)

[/quote]

Hi pavankarwa123,

Happy to help. The argument comes down to whether the closure of the rig was a symbolic victory for those who oppose offshore oil drilling. B) tells us that those who oppose offshore oil drilling were able to win some legislative victories, but inherently what does that have to do with THIS particular rig closure? Nothing. Just because the opposition put on the pressure to get some legislation passed, how can we make the leap that their pressure also led to the closure of this rig? We can't. B) is what we'd call Out of the Logical Focus of the argument.

Option C), and the Bigger GMAT CR Picture:
On the GMAT, a classic way to strengthen a cause is to eliminate a likely alternative cause, and that's EXACTLY what C) does, and hence it's correct.

(for convenient reference)
[/quote]

I see! So what I deduce from this is that - one cannot make an assumption within a given answer choice(evidence), when trying to solve CR!

I guess I got it wrong because of my perceived definition of "symbolic victory". i understand a symbolic victory as one that only looks like a victory but is not really one. Therefore, choice E seemed the right answer (as there were plans to close it anyway, then the victory is only apparent and do not have a big impact in it's immediate surroundings).

Is it safe to say that in the GMAT, anything symbolic is anything really important and meaningful?

Hi sarguelles!

I'd be happy to help. There are two issues in regard to your question:

1) Keeping your assignment straight - You didn't ask about this specifically, but this is BY FAR the most important issue in regard to what you're asking: This question is asking us to strengthen the claim that that the closure represents a symbolic victory. E, however, actually weakens the argument since E makes it clear that the plant was likely to be closed anyhow, thus devastating the claim that this closure was any sort of meaningful, or symbolic victory. E is what we call a 180 option since it does the opposite of what we need to do. GMAC uses 180s a lot! Usually, each CR and RC question will have at least one 180 option, and 180s are important tools to measure if test-takers can keep on track with a specific assignment (something of course highly relevant for B-school and professional success).

2) Symbolism - Something symbolic can be important or unimportant. Symbolism is a different variable altogether, and the degree of importance of something symbolic depends on context. There's no universal rule about the importance of symbolism, or the lack thereof, nor would you even be likely to see that specific concept come up on your GMAT. The prompt is actually pointing out that the closure carries with it a symbolic victory (and from that person's perspective, the victory carries importance).

Thanks for the quick reply! I got the 180 option. I just figured that if a symbolic victory was not a meaningful victory, but instead something that just appeared as a victory, managing to close a rig that was going to close anyways was just an apparent victory, making E, IMO, the right answer. If we understand symbolic as important then yes, C is the only right answer.

Thanks for the help!

I have thought C as the best answer, but really dont understand the phrase "the economic incentive to leave", i think it must be "the economic incentive to continue" ? Could you explain it to me?
Thanks a lot for the hard question

Let me try to answer. You need to take the complete phrase "the economic incentive to leave the rig in service" into consideration. 'Leaving the rig in service' means to let the rig function normally.

Option C eliminates one of the most common weakener, an alternate reason for rigs to have closed. Lets say the rig was not profitable for the past 10 years and the government was already planning to shut it down. This development would then not have been the 'symbolic victory' for the opponents. The rig would have closed in this case no matter how much agitations the opponents would have done. This option acts as the desired strengthener by eliminating one other possible explanation that might have weakened the argument.

Hope this helps.

Yes this helps. Thanks a lot. "leave the rig in service" means "let it work". Because Im not a native speaker so somtimes the idioms make me confused

I was confused between a) and c) my reasoning is as below:-

Why C cant be answer:
even if " The economic incentive to leave the rig in service still existed at the time of the rig's closure " is true the closure can not be a symbolic victory for " entire anti drilling movement" because it can only be a symbolic victory to offshore drilling, there can be a situation like onshore drilling which has nothing to do with this.

Why a can be a valid answer:-
if "Several other oil rigs have been closed in and immediately around Colton Bay" is true then there is a possibility that it can include all kind of drilling activities so it may be a symbolic victory to anti drilling movement.

can you tell me how am i wrong? am I assuming too many things?

Hello Folks ..
Here I am not getting the purpose or meaning of statement in C .
My understanding is that , the oil drilling comapny is getting some reward or incentive from government if company closes drilling.
It is weakening the conclusion as per my understanding. Somebody please help on this . Thank you !!

B. After theypressured for new regulations,this regulations have been put to work and the first rig have been closed. It's symbolic

Posted from my mobile device

Dear team,
I am not convinced with Answer C.
Option C: The economic incentive to leave the rig in service still existed at the time of the rig's closure>>
What I infer>> Rig owner will get incentive if he/she close the productive rig.
Please help me in correcting the thought process
bb generis GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Answer C.
A symbolic victory is an achievement that doesn't produce the desired result but that recognises or acknowledges the effort made.
A symbolic victory for the entire anti-drilling movement (in Colton Bay/its State/Country or anti drilling movement all over the World against offshore drilling).... so one rig closure is symbolic victory for the entire anti drilling movement.
Why option C - because the rig at Colton Bay was still economically viable when the decision of closing it down was taken due to the efforts of anti drilling movement and this victory will be a symbolic one for other anti drilling movements.