It is currently 25 Jun 2017, 21:20

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 291
Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2010, 11:29
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

90% (01:58) correct 10% (01:46) wrong based on 38 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
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 87
Location: United States

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2010, 15:31
I am thinking A. The environmentalist's conclusion is that the oil company's single concern is regarding press/sales, and that there is no room for multiple motives.
VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1491

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2010, 20:10
Is OA (C)?

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 128

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2010, 22:34
nverma 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
(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

I pinned down to options A&C, i think other options can be discarded easily.
here is my take on options A&C:
A: this is certainly assumed, we need to focus on evidence of environmentalist's argument, he say "Your real concern is evident in your.. " this means environmentalist assumes that Oil company representative does not have any other
"real" concern except what environmentalist says.

C: environmentalist is not concerned with profit of the oil company, he mentions this to justify his evidence, moreover environmentalist mentions "level of sales" which is different from profit.

IMO A
Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 217

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 06:21
I narrowed it down to A & C

Then decided to go with A
because option C go with environmentalist's views but it talks about profit not sales. Dont want to assume here

Only option left is A

What is OA?
_________________

Success is my Destiny

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 291

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2010, 08:02
The OA is A.

As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.

Can some shed light on the matter...!!
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 18

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 14:25
I think it is A.
As for C, first how the company manages the profits I think has nothing to do with the decission made in this particular case. It does not necessarily link the premise to conclusion.
Second, I do not like "always" "never" those extreme words
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 87
Location: United States

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 14:46
nverma wrote:
The OA is A.

As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.

Can some shed light on the matter...!!

The environmentalist’s conclusion is that the oil company has no concern for the environment.

“A” says that that the OC has only one concern. The argument already showed that they have a concern for profit/sales, so this leaves no room for a concern for the environment.

“C” may support the environmentalist, but does not say that the OC does not have concern for the environment. Just because they like profits, doesn’t mean they don’t have any concern for the environment, or that they cannot change their course.

Has to be “A.”
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 291

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2010, 01:10
mmphf wrote:
nverma wrote:
The OA is A.

As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.

Can some shed light on the matter...!!

The environmentalist’s conclusion is that the oil company has no concern for the environment.

“A” says that that the OC has only one concern. The argument already showed that they have a concern for profit/sales, so this leaves no room for a concern for the environment.

“C” may support the environmentalist, but does not say that the OC does not have concern for the environment. Just because they like profits, doesn’t mean they don’t have any concern for the environment, or that they cannot change their course.

Has to be “A.”

Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 87
Location: United States

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2010, 14:15
nverma wrote:
mmphf wrote:
nverma wrote:
The OA is A.

As per A, the oil company can have only one motive, but then why can't the only motive be "environmental concern.". Somehow i 'm not able to neglect C.

Can some shed light on the matter...!!

The environmentalist’s conclusion is that the oil company has no concern for the environment.

“A” says that that the OC has only one concern. The argument already showed that they have a concern for profit/sales, so this leaves no room for a concern for the environment.

“C” may support the environmentalist, but does not say that the OC does not have concern for the environment. Just because they like profits, doesn’t mean they don’t have any concern for the environment, or that they cannot change their course.

Has to be “A.”

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 statement says specifically that the oil company's actions show they are concerned with their level of sales. This is not just the environmentalist's opinion; he/she says that the oil company admitted in a press conference how it would be damaging. This concern for their public image, and in turn their level of sales is a fact. The environamentalist is asserting that the oil company's statement that they do show concern for the enviroment, that their only concern is profit/sales.

Sorry if that is confusing. Hope it helps.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 186

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2010, 07:09
Flaw was obvious and only A exposes it
Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Posts: 22
Re: Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2015, 11:14
So according to your below explanation, C is correct . Would You please confirm. I can understand that the environmentalists has made an assumption that the company has a different motivation by determining the action it takes. In this case the profit is behind the scene. What do you think. I can understand the logic but cannot see why A if correct is correct?

“A” says that that the OC has only one concern. The argument already showed that they have a concern for profit/sales, so this leaves no room for a concern for the environment.

“C” may support the environmentalist, but does not say that the OC does not have concern for the environment. Just because they like profits, doesn’t mean they don’t have any concern for the environment, or that they cannot change their course.

Has to be “A.”[/quote]

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 statement says specifically that the oil company's actions show they are concerned with their level of sales. This is not just the environmentalist's opinion; he/she says that the oil company admitted in a press conference how it would be damaging. This concern for their public image, and in turn their level of sales is a fact. The environamentalist is asserting that the oil company's statement that they do show concern for the enviroment, that their only concern is profit/sales.

Sorry if that is confusing. Hope it helps.[/quote]
Re: Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning   [#permalink] 07 Mar 2015, 11:14
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Oil Company Spokesperson: Although wind, solar, biofuels 5 23 Jun 2017, 11:46
2 In an attempt to protect the environment and stop oil companies from 3 17 Mar 2016, 21:13
8 Oil companies are converting more and more of the full 4 30 Jul 2016, 04:20
1 In the past decade, a decreasing % of money spent on 10 21 Dec 2014, 01:36
56 In order to save money, some of Company X's manufacturing 44 15 Oct 2016, 03:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by