It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 12:46

### 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
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1878

Kudos [?]: 1443 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 00:07
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:39) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 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 environmentalist’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 company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1443 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1534

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 02:33
I will go with A. If there is more than one motive, then both the concerns are addressed and the environmentalist's claim does not hold good.

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 248

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 02:48
IMO A. An assumption question

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 environmentalist’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 -->if it has more than one purpose for its action, the other purposes could contain environmental concern --> weaken the conclusion of environmentalist
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project -->this is not the main point that the environmentalist wants to emphasize, though this choice is attractive
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action --> too general
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it --> irrelevant
(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills -->out of scope

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 278

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 04:31
This is a justify the conclusion question and not an assumption question.

a. company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill --> doesnt truely justify the conclusion. Company can have more than one motives. what is important is the priority

b. oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action -Hihgest preference is profits. So it acts in a way which effects its profits. Hence the answer

What is the oa ?

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 3

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1878

Kudos [?]: 1443 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 22:26
Guys, if there is no "always" in C, is C correct? C is very fit with what the enviromentalist says.
Thanks
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1443 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 278

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 23:04

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 3

Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 855

Kudos [?]: 503 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

20 May 2009, 04:16
I went for C.
sondenso 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 environmentalist’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 oil company may have many motives and still not care about environment.
(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 CORRECT
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

Kudos [?]: 503 [0], given: 7

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 295

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 3

Location: Hungary

### Show Tags

20 May 2009, 05:49

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Posts: 142

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

20 May 2009, 09:38
IMO A , only 1 motive protecting their public image.

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 5

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1878

Kudos [?]: 1443 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg

### Show Tags

21 May 2009, 00:50
OA is A
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1443 [0], given: 1

Re: Otters   [#permalink] 21 May 2009, 00:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 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®.