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

 It is currently 15 Jun 2019, 22:35

### 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

# Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 174
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 2.87
WE: Engineering (Other)
Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2018, 08:09
2
1
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (02:06) correct 31% (02:38) wrong based on 199 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be placed on offshore drilling due to our country’s need for energy resources, and the possible serious consequences if new energy reserves are not located and explored now. Of course, the vast sums of money the oil companies stand to reap as a result of these drilling efforts completely invalidates any such arguments.

The questionable pattern of reasoning above is most similar to which of the following?

(A) Everyone in town was wearing boots yesterday, and everyone in town was also carrying an umbrella. Based on this evidence it is obvious that wearing boots causes one to carry an umbrella.

(B) The owner of a local gas station claims to be losing money, but everyone knows that the oil industry is earning record profits, which undoubtedly proves that the gas station’s owner must be lying.

(C) The mayor has argued strenuously in favor of a government housing subsidy. Since such a move would benefit some town residents more than others, this plan should not be implemented.

(D) Although the board claims that their vote in favor of the merger is in the best interest of all shareholders, the fact that the merger will be most beneficial to the board’s members themselves shows that other shareholders should object to the board’s decision.

(E) The individual who cheated on yesterday’s test surely could have answered every question correctly. Mary answered every question on the test correctly, so she must have been the student who cheated.

_________________
Hitting Kudos is the best way of appreciation.

Eric Thomas, "When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you'll be successful."
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 378
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.76
Re: Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2018, 08:21
Its D
Oil companies argue no further restrictions on offshore drilling else serious consequences will be faced
But actually this drilling will have positive impact largely on Oil Companies so this argument isn't valid

Similarly Board members say merger will work for shareholders but actually it is beneficial for board of members so shareholders should object.

A is not relevant
C talks about benefit to some town members but not the mayor who claims so its not the parallel reasoning
E is wrong too
who cheated answer every question right, marry cheated so she must have cheated
B has same pattern of reasoning as E
_________________
Push yourself again and again. Don't give an inch until the final buzzer sounds. -Larry Bird
Success isn't something that just happens - success is learned, success is practiced and then it is shared. -Sparky Anderson
-S
Senior RC Moderator
Status: Preparing GMAT
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 2757
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.39
Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2018, 01:53
HasnainAfxal wrote:
Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be placed on offshore drilling due to our country’s need for energy resources, and the possible serious consequences if new energy reserves are not located and explored now. Of course, the vast sums of money the oil companies stand to reap as a result of these drilling efforts completely invalidates any such arguments.

The questionable pattern of reasoning above is most similar to which of the following?

(A) Everyone in town was wearing boots yesterday, and everyone in town was also carrying an umbrella. Based on this evidence it is obvious that wearing boots causes one to carry an umbrella.

(B) The owner of a local gas station claims to be losing money, but everyone knows that the oil industry is earning record profits, which undoubtedly proves that the gas station’s owner must be lying.

(C) The mayor has argued strenuously in favor of a government housing subsidy. Since such a move would benefit some town residents more than others, this plan should not be implemented.

(D) Although the board claims that their vote in favor of the merger is in the best interest of all shareholders, the fact that the merger will be most beneficial to the board’s members themselves shows that other shareholders should object to the board’s decision.

(E) The individual who cheated on yesterday’s test surely could have answered every question correctly. Mary answered every question on the test correctly, so she must have been the student who cheated.

Difficulty Level: 600

Official Explanation

The stimulus is followed by a Parallel Flaw question, which means that we need to find the answer choice which employs the same flawed reasoning. The correct answer in this case will likely reflect a similarly flawed assertion, that any conflicting incentives take away all credibility from an argument or decision.

Answer choice (A): The causal flaw represented here is different from that reflected in the stimulus. In this answer choice, the author mistakenly presumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been shown. Clearly there is probably a third variable (such as the weather) that might cause one both to wear boots and to carry an umbrella.

Answer choice (B): Although this answer also deals with the oil industry, this choice reflects a flaw that is different from that found in the stimulus. The mistake here is in the presumption that a successful industry must mean success for everyone involved with that industry. What is true of the whole, in this case, is not necessarily true of each component part. Note also that answers that deal with the same topic as the stimulus tend to be incorrect.

Answer choice (C): The author of this answer asserts that a subsidy which benefits some more than others is not a good idea. The implication of this questionable argument is that such a subsidy would be justified only in cases where everyone benefits exactly equally. While this argument is indeed questionable, it does not reflect the same flaw as that found in the stimulus, so this answer choice should be eliminated.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, displaying a similarly flawed line of reasoning based on a Source argument. The board members may benefit more than other shareholders from the merger approval, and that may provide some reason to scrutinize the board’s decision, but it still does not prove that the decision lacks all reasonable basis or should be rejected outright.

Answer choice (E): This choice is incorrect because the flaw represented here is the classic conditional flaw of Mistaken Reversal: Just because the cheater would have known all the answers, this obviously doesn’t mean that those who know all the answers are necessarily cheaters.

Hope it help
_________________
New Project RC Butler 2019 - Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday
Final days of the GMAT Exam? => All GMAT Flashcards.
This Post Helps = Press +1 Kudos
Best of Luck on the GMAT!!
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 249
Re: Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2018, 06:09
Hi experts,

it is hard for me to understand the stimulus, I cannot understand what the stimulus says, let alone the structure,

Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2017
Posts: 79
Location: India
Schools: Yale '19, GMBA '20, XLRI
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V35
GPA: 3.8
Re: Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2018, 00:56
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi experts,

it is hard for me to understand the stimulus, I cannot understand what the stimulus says, let alone the structure,

Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be placed on offshore drilling due to our country’s need for energy resources, and the possible serious consequences if new energy reserves are not located and explored now. Of course, the vast sums of money the oil companies stand to reap as a result of these drilling efforts completely invalidates any such arguments.

The argument states the company's claim that restrictions on off shore drilling should be stopped because the country needs resources and there will be serious problems if restrictions are put. The conclusion basically points that these companies tend to incur huge profits from off shore drilling, so these companies' claims are invalidated. In other words these companies are disguising the actual motive (profit earning) under general benefits (country's benefits).

Only D has a similar line of reasoning.

KUDOS if the post helped!
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 249
Re: Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2018, 07:47
kanakdaga wrote:
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi experts,

it is hard for me to understand the stimulus, I cannot understand what the stimulus says, let alone the structure,

Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be placed on offshore drilling due to our country’s need for energy resources, and the possible serious consequences if new energy reserves are not located and explored now. Of course, the vast sums of money the oil companies stand to reap as a result of these drilling efforts completely invalidates any such arguments.

The argument states the company's claim that restrictions on off shore drilling should be stopped because the country needs resources and there will be serious problems if restrictions are put. The conclusion basically points that these companies tend to incur huge profits from off shore drilling, so these companies' claims are invalidated. In other words these companies are disguising the actual motive (profit earning) under general benefits (country's benefits).

Only D has a similar line of reasoning.

KUDOS if the post helped!

thanks so much kanakdaga
I got what I missed, I thought the claim and the conclusion are both from the author. then i total confused the logic of the argument.

Have a nice day
Re: Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions should be   [#permalink] 18 Dec 2018, 07:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by