It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 15:12

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning

Author Message
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 597

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 06:39
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalistâ€™s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the
(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil companyâ€™s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

Plz explain.
_________________

Regards, S

Kudos [?]: 274 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 07:19
tough to chosse between A an C

I will go with A

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 07:29
saurya_s wrote:
anand can you plz explain?
S

This is what typical lawyer would say to (C)
"so what, past behavior does not tell/show that futute behavior will be same"
This is the weakness of (C)

If you negate (A) what you get is that the company could have a motive to increase it profits as well as care for the environment. Then the critique cannot conclude that making profits is the only motive. Hence the argument falls apart.

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 850

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 07:29
I will go with 'C' becos the Environmentalist starts off with "Your real concern is evident in your admission..... "

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2231

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 08:45
Fact: The company spend money to rescue otters affected by its oil spill.
Fact: The company admitted that pictures of oil-covered otters damage its image as well as level of sales.
Conclusion of Environmentalist: Company doesn't concern about environment. Its real concern is their sales.

(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
If the company can only have one motive, we have already established that its concern of their sales if one of the motives, then it follows there's no other motives, and it follows that it doesn't concern the enviroment.

(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
Doesn't support Env's claim, in fact it leans toward the company's claim.

(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
Again profit could be one of the motives. It does not exclude the concern of environment as an additional concern.

(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
Yes. So? Doesn't say anything about the company. In fact leans toward supporting the company.

(E) oil companyâ€™s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills
That's a good thing, especially for the company, and has no support whatsoever for the enviormentalists' claim.

Kudos [?]: 376 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 604

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 09:01
I would say A.
C which says " oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action " it says it has shown that thats how it has in the past doesn't mean its the same for the future.
but y eah it could be A or C. i am curious to understand why C can be picked over A if it is picked.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1431

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 09:04
"A". Also in "C", sales always doesn't always translate into "profits

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 668

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 17:09
I would pick C to A.

A says
"oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill"

The only motive is sales of their oil. OK...

C) says "oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action "

CHOOSING its course of actions are determined by a sole goal of earning profits. So it doesnt care or environment/aquatic life

And more than this the usage of the words in option C are intense.

So C stands out.

Anand,HongHu,baner and the gurus out there, is my reasoning OK/faulty?

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1208

Kudos [?]: 818 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 00:14
saurya_s wrote:
Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalistâ€™s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the
(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil companyâ€™s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

Plz explain.

B/W A and C. Go with A.
In C, that oil company concerns about hight profits doesn't exclude the oil company from environmental concerns.

In A,
That oil company cannot have more than one motive does exclude the oil company from environmental concerns.

Kudos [?]: 818 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 13:58
I will go with A, what's the answer?

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

03 Mar 2005, 13:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by