Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters

Hi Expert,

I think A is correct.

C is too strong.

Please explain the answer.

Thanks.

Two things.

Eliminating a choice because it is "too strong" is too simplistic. Using such approaches will not get you to correct answers to higher level CR questions. To perform at a high level in CR, you have to use fairly sophisticated, logical explanations for your choices.

Having said that, I have to agree that (A) is the better choice. What (C) says is about the past, and does not necessarily mean that the oil company is not concerned about the environment in this case.

So, good point, and perhaps, by "too strong" you meant something more logical than the words "too strong" seem to convey.

VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry
chetan2u
Can you please throw some light on this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

I am no expert but the reason why I believe A is a better answer choice is because C has a certain word "profit maximization' i think that profit maximization and 'damage control' are two different things. i am not sure if my line of reasoning is correct, correct me if i am wrong

C is a better option.

In Point A --> oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill-->doesn't necessarily support the environmentalist's point.

If we negate this option A-->oil company can have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill.
It still supports the environmentalist' view .
Reason :It says that cleaning is not Company's main concern.Never said that it is their only concern.so,company can have multiple motives.

Quick Question. Can we say profits is not necessarily equal to Sales and hence option C is incorrect?

chetan2u

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

POE:

A- sounds good to be correct choice.It directly eliminates the alternate possibility or intention with with company cleaned the otters. (If there are alternate intentions then the environmentalist's conclusion will weaken.)

B- weakens the environmentalist's conclusion and supports oil company rep's point. Incorrect

C- incorrect,leaves space for such possibilityi.e alternate possibility or intention with with company cleaned the otters.

D-Out of scope.

E- Irrevelant to the discussion point.

Hence A is the best choice.



Regards,
Atul Pandey

Posted from my mobile device

I can't say I like this question. Once I saw A, I immediately knew where it was going, but the problem is A) requires us to make another assumption - that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities: the company's having a concern for the environment or the company's concern about their profits/sales.

Suppose we negate A), then the choice would say

Oil company CAN have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill

Why should we necessarily assume that this other motive is concern for the environment?

On the other hand, if we negate C :

Oil company HAS NOT always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action

Then this weakens the argument because it suggests that there have been times (like this one) where the company CAN be concerned about something else...e.g. environmental concerns

CEdward, I am personally not a fan of the negation technique as I don't enjoy it and have difficulty in negating things in the right manner. The negation of words such as can/cannot, some/none, few/more, etc often leaves me confused so I avoid it. That said, I'm happy to share my POV on this question.

The environmentalist has basically established one concern of the oil company behind the cleaning drive - the images would be damaging to the company's public image. We won't be refuting/going against this concern as we're looking to support the environmentalist. We're trying to say that the company only cares about their profits,sales,etc (basically the business side of things) and not the oaters,environment, etcs.

Option C - oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action.
This option is basically saying that the company REALLY, REALLY cares about their profits. But Of course, that does not mean that they don't care about the environment. We have no idea what else it cares about. High regard does not mean the highest regard. We have no idea if the company cares about the environment or not. I agree that this option is definitely not bad and is a close second.

Option A - oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
Basically says that there is just 1 motive behind the cleaning drive. We already know that that 1 motive is the company's image. The company itself made the press-release and of course, we're looking to support the environmentalists.

Hence, A is better than C IMO. Would like to know what you think and hope this helps!