It has often been hypothesized that global oil consumption,

Can anyone explain the answer here?

OE for this one please. Would be happy to throw some Kudos out there

Thanks!
Cheers!
J

Global oil consumption which increases every year is a fact.
That such consumption will deplete the supply of oil is the opinion here. So, A contradicts a fact.

Not just that, it doesn't fully explain the paradox. Usually with such questions, the answer choice should explain both sides of the paradox.

This is what I think, can some please explain why A?

Waiting for the nice OE here. Kudos +1 button is on fire

Thanks
Cheers
J

Please post the OE.

I picked D as an answer.

And what is the source of the question?

It has often been hypothesized that global oil consumption, which increases every year, will deplete the supply of oil, with catastrophic results for the global economy. However, these claims never stand up to scrutiny, as the volume of oil in reserves around the world has remained constant.
Which one of the following, if true, best resolves the apparent paradox?

(A) The actual annual consumption of oil is below that which many experts estimate. As it can be seen from the stem, it has been HYPOTHESIZED, the actual consumption could be well below the rate mentioned by the experts, hence:

A) OIL Levels = OIL OUTPUT - OIL Consumption rate ('overestimated')
B) OIL Levels = OIL OUTPUT - REAL OIL Consumption rate ('Actual')

Caveat:
where {Overestimated rate > Actual rate}. Hence, balances the OIL Levels.

(B) The cost of operating oil refineries has steadily decreased over time. Cost is totally out of scope. As can be seen from the stats, A vs. D if the fight.
(C) The consumption of oil has greatly increased in the past 50 years. Consumption trend is actually deepening the paradox. higher the consumption will mean higher the depletion. But that doesn't solve the constant output.
(D) It is the policy of all major oil producers to locate new reserves
at a rate consistent with that at which old reserves are depleted. It might be a policy to find new Oil-wells at the same rate as consumption, but does not in anyway mention whether this increases or counter-balances the consumption rate.
(E) The number of oil-producing countries has been steadily declining. this again adds to the paradox, but doesn't really solve it.

The doubt is certainly between A and D.
Keeping A aside as a probable answer as this tends to oppose one of the facts stated in the stimuli.
We move to D.
The word "locate" in D is sure contentious. "Locating" reserves at the same rate at which they are getting depleted does not guarantee that the "new reserves" hold the same volume of oil as the previously depleted ones(as stated in the stimuli ," the volume of oil in reserves around the world has remained constant").
So A seems the better choice if not best.

In my opinion option A, does accept the fact, the oil consumption is happening,but does not justify the paradox, on constant volume of oil reserves .. Any body who can correct me/advice me here?

How does choice A explain that the volume of oil in reserves around the world has remained constant?

The actual annual consumption of oil may be below that which many experts estimate, but there is a consumption, which should decrease the reserve. Choice A does not explain what deters this decrease.

Answer D seems correct, but it doesn't solve the paradox that the estimates are showing a decline, while it supports the premise of reserves being constant.

GMATNinja there's a lot of chaos here between option choices A and D. Could you please shed some light on this?

mikemcgarry carcass GMATNinja Could one of you guys please explain why option A is correct? I am unable to understand the true gist behind option A. I picked option D instead.

Dear csaluja & rever08,

I'm happy to respond.

This is a flawed question. On an official question or a high-quality practice question, there is one unambiguously right answers and four answers, each of which is incorrect for a specific unambiguous reason. Well-written CR practice questions are worth their weight on gold. By contrast, this question is an unmitigated disaster. Both (A) & (D) would be plausible OAs; the question writer was trying to create a "tempting distractor," and overshot by making it "too tempting," i.e. correct. This is a quite typical mistake of an inexperienced question writer. (B) is laughably irrelevant and (C) & (E) are so wrong as to be not tempting at all.

Students have nothing to gain by studying flawed question. I have no idea what the source of this question is. If it comes from a book, then the very best thing you could do for your prep would be to soak the book in gasoline and set it on fire! One has nothing to gain from puzzling over this question.

Here's a high quality practice CR question:
ACL injuries

Does all this make sense?
Mike