EnergyMill Company Advertisement: An Environmental Impact Coalition

(A) An earlier Environmental Impact Coalition report showed that solar power
produces fewer pollutants than does wind power.
Poweting new developments is our goal. Yes solar power produces fewer pollutants but that does not imply that its the best option
(B) In the last five years, the government has invested more in wind power
than in any other form of green energy.
Looks out of scope
(C) The dispersion of homes in rural areas makes wind power several times
more expensive that conventional energy sources.
This appears to be correct. Since the houses are sparsely populated, the cost of wind power increases and hence it weakens the conclusion
(D) The difference between the number of pollutants generated by wind power
and conventional power sources is quite pronounced.
Looks out of scope
(E) The Environmental Impact Coalition issues reports only once a year.
Looks out of scope
Source: GMAT Hacks - 010813

How can this be?
Nowhere is there any focus on money.
The only thing that is used to estimate if energy is good or bad is the amount of pollutants.
I think it's A.
Anyone?

I think this is a poorly written question -- I too, thought the answer was A because it makes the premise of the argument incorrect. Like others before have stated, if the argument stated that wind power was the best choice for rural areas because it was cheaper, than C would be the best answer.

Upon further research, I found the original question, which includes an explanation for the answers A and C:


Sure, there are other considerations, but we don't know what other considerations would make something better or worse; therefore, we cannot use other considerations to weaken our argument. For all we know, a higher cost could make something better (in terms of quality, for example -- but we would be making an assumption here, too).


It's a huge assumption to think that an earlier report would almost always be wrong just because it came before the argument's report. And it's not true that we don't know the validity of the two reports; we must conclude that the report in Answer A is just as valid, if not more, than the report from the argument because the question says "if true".


And again, for C, wouldn't we be making an assumption to say that wind power is not the best choice just because it is more expensive? There are plenty of things that are more expensive, but "better". Usually, when we say something is better, we have certain criteria -- in this case, our criteria for "better" is the amount of pollutants it produces. Based solely on this information, and if we know that solar power produces less pollutants than wind power, then we can conclude that solar power is actually the best option.

Of course, maybe I just have a bias against the question now because I got it wrong

EDIT: after thinking about it, making the premise not true is not the most effective way to weaken an argument. Attacking assumptions in the argument is the better strategy, but again, this question is badly worded. It perhaps might be better written as such:

An Environmental Impact Coalition report shows that wind power produces the fewest pollutants among all green energy alternatives. Since rural areas cannot afford most conventional energy alternatives, EnergyMill wind turbines are the best choice for powering new developments in rural areas.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?

(A) An earlier Environmental Impact Coalition report showed that solar power produces fewer pollutants than does wind power.
(B) In the last five years, the government has invested more in wind power than in any other form of green energy.
(C) The dispersion of homes in rural areas makes wind power several times more expensive that conventional energy sources.
(D) The difference between the number of pollutants generated by wind power and conventional power sources is quite pronounced.
(E) The Environmental Impact Coalition issues reports only once a year.

It is clearly A ... since solar power produces fewer pollutants ... it is the best option not wind power...

C is the clear choice. the argument assumes that because wind power has fewer pollutants it is the best choice. but "Best" choice might depend on a variety of factors. so the answers that point to one of the factors and says if this is considered wind power may not be the best will weaken the argument. C does that clearly

I think this is a poorly written question and cannot see how the OA is C. The question asks, "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?" The argument in the advertisement, as I read it, is that, because wind power produces the fewest pollutants, it is therefore the best choice. Nowhere in the advertisement does it take even take the cost (or any other variables besides pollutant production) of these energy alternatives into account, which is what andwer choice C is doing. Therefore, C, while being a real-world consideration, does not directly weaken the argument provided in the advertisement.

I believe the correct answer is A as that most directly speaks to the argument explicitly in the advertisement text. If anyone can explain how C weakens the argument without extrapolating and taking other variables into account, which the advertisement does not do, please explain.

The problem with A is there is a word "earlier" which makes the finding outdated... That's why i picked C.

I think ... something wrong with this question..

"Best choice"..the term is subjective.. it differs from subject to subject.. and that is not clearly defined in this question.

Poor quality Question.

I hope I wont get such kind of poorly formulated questions on GMAT
The EnergyMill Company Advertisement announces:


Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?
Definitely, it's "A" 'cause it's about green energy but not about the viable investment. Questions doesn't specify if it's an Advertisement for potential investors or for the government. And the main argument in the statement is marked above in bold:
wind power produces the fewest pollutants among all green energy alternatives - statement
best for powering new developments in rural areas - conclusion
So test takers assume that having the fewest pollutant solution is crucial for for powering new developments in rural areas, which makes total sense, protect the planet

In the meantime, even if we think about financial aspects of investing in the green power answer C doesn't assume that the current dispersion of homes will remain the same in 10 -15 -20 years, and investing in green energy is a long-term investment, nobody expects to see results right away or in 1 year. The C answer doesn't state the dispersion will remain the same for the next x-years or probably will be the same
(C) The dispersion of homes in rural areas makes wind power several times more expensive that conventional energy sources.

Such kind of questions really confuse GMAT candidates, you feel like an idiot

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.