Oil executive: While it is true that the number of reported oil spills

Question

Oil executive: While it is true that the number of reported oil spills per year has increased steadily over the last three decades, this is much more a function of how easy it is to detect small oil spills than of an increase in frequency of oil spills overall. In the past the only spills reported were those large enough to be detected by environmentalists and journalists. Nowadays analytics will report to the authorities even the smallest fissures in pipelines and tankers.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the executive’s argument?

A. The size of the average oil spill has decreased over the last three decades.

B. The number of large and medium oil spills has remained roughly constant over the last three decades.

C. Because of improved logistics, the average distance a barrel of oil travels to its destination has decreased by 40% over the last three decades.

D. The cost required to clean up the average oil spill has decreased by over 20% over the last three decades.

E. The average oil company spends nearly twice as much today on anti-spill equipment as it spent three decades ago.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

bv8562 · Answer

B IMO: Because if the number of large and medium oil spills has remained roughly constant over the last three decades and the number of reported oil spills per year has increased steadily over the last three decades then it must be true that the number of small oil spills has increased.

pudu · Answer

B

even though the number of reported spills increased, the size of the medium and large spills remained the same. It indicates that the increased number of spills are small. Hence it supported the executive's statement.

ostrick5465 · Answer

Oil executive: While it is true that   the number of reported oil spills per year has increased   steadily over the last three decades,   this is much more a function of how easy it is to detect small oil spills than of an increase in frequency of oil spills overall  . In the past the only spills reported were those large enough to be detected by environmentalists and journalists. Nowadays analytics will report to the authorities even the smallest fissures in pipelines and tankers.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the executive’s argument?

A. The size of the average oil spill has decreased over the last three decades. =>  Can not support  the point "this is much more a function of how easy it is to detect small oil spills than of an increase in frequency of oil spills overall"

B. The number of large and medium oil spills has remained roughly constant over the last three decades. (Total = Large + Small; Total increased, small increased  => the large remained )   => Correct

C. Because of improved logistics,  the average distance a barrel of oil travels  to its destination has decreased by 40% over the last three decades.  => Not relevant

D.  The cost required to clean up the average oil spill  has decreased by over 20% over the last three decades.  => Not relevant

E. The average oil company spends nearly twice as much today on anti-spill equipment as it spent three decades ago. =>  Can not support  the point "this is much more a function of how easy it is to detect small oil spills than of an increase in frequency of oil spills overall"

=> Correct answer: B

Hoozan · Answer

The argument says that it is less of the frequency of oil spills and more of the easy function of detecting the oil spills

(E) says that the companies spend much more on anti-oil spills. So, doesn't this further strengthen the idea that the possibility of oil spills frequently occurring is less? Thus, it is indeed easier to detect an oil spill than the oil spill itself.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

In this strengthen question, take careful note of the oil executive's conclusion, which is that the increase in reported oil spills (he concedes this is a fact) has occurred because it is easier to detect small oil spills, not because there are more oil spills. In other words, the total number of oil spills is the same, and the increased number of reports of them is due to the more-frequent reporting of small spills.

Note how correct answer (B) directly strengthens that: if you know (from the argument) that there are more reported spills overall, and you know (from choice B) that the number of large and medium spills is unchanged, then the increase has to have come from the reporting of those small spills. (B) limits the increase to the smaller spills, and therefore furthers the executive's argument.

Note that with choice (A), the conclusion isn't that there are more small oil spills total but that there have been more reported. So the fact that the average spill is smaller doesn't directly relate to the executive's argument. Furthermore, even if the average reported spill were smaller, that doesn't necessarily mean that there are more small spills being reported - it could just be that each of the larger and medium spills reported have been smaller (maybe they were better-controlled than in the past, for example).

Choice (C) might seem to suggest a reason that there are fewer spills (there is less time/space that each barrel spends in transit) but this misses the general purpose of the argument, which relates to the detection of small spills. The argument isn't that there are fewer transportation-related spills, but that the increase in reported skills comes primarily from the detection of smaller spills.

Choices (D) and (E) each attempt to use cost as proxy for safety - (D) wants you to think that because the cost of cleanup is down, the spills must be less frequent or smaller, but that's not necessarily the reason. Perhaps cleanup technology has just gotten less expensive. Similarly (E) wants you to think that because companies are spending more to prevent spills, spills have decreased or stayed the same. But that's not necessarily the case: what if inflation is higher and the companies are spending less in "real" terms and more nominally because of the currency, for example?

Only choice (B), which is correct, directly relates to the detection of small spills.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Oil executive: While it is true that the number of reported oil spills

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Oil executive: While it is true that the number of reported oil spills

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards