From 1973 to 1986, growth in the United States economy was over 33 per

Economy grew from 73-86 by 33.3%
however, Energy consumption grew by 0% and in fact energy efficiencies, as measured by the number of barrels of oil saved per day, have reached 13 million barrels since 1973.

Thus, it is clear the economy is able to grow without consuming additional energy (since energy has been saved, not spent)

I was wondering why C is wrong because it mentions consumption of gasoline, then I found the by-products made out of a barrel of oil. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/can-ma ... arrel-oil/

sony1000, The barrels of Oil ---- can yield ---> gasoline: It's a thoughtful consideration.
However, Let's Deep-dive!

Given:

1) From 1973 to 1986: The growth in US economy > 33%.
2) From 1973 to 1986: The growth in US energy consumption = 0%.
3) Since 1973: The # of barrels of oil saved is 13 million.

- The number of barrels of oil being saved per day by energy-efficiency improvements made SINCE 1973 is NOW 13 million.

Notice, How GMAT plays with the language.

The 1st and 2nd data-points cover the duration from 1973 to 1986, whereas the 3rd data-point covers the timeline SINCE 1973, implying the timeline from 1973 till NOW.

A Classic move by GMAT!

Option-C: A reduction in the consumption of gasoline was the reason overall energy consumption remained steady.

It's NOT necessary to say:
A reduction in the consumption of gasoline ------ led to -----> overall energy consumption remained steady.
The # of barrels of oil saved CAN easily result in any time interval between 1973 and 2019 (NOW) - NOT necessarily From 1973 to 1986- thereby, shattering the UNJUST inference.
The entire savings of 13 million CAN come after 1986, say from 1990 to 1995, and still, the notion will be TRUE.

Ex: Because of the findings of shell gas in the oceans from 1990 to 1995 ----------> The # of barrels of oil saved was 13 million.

Nevertheless, even if the events occurred in the same time-frame, they easily CAN be coincident events, NOT necessarily causative, unless backed by the argument. - Capacity vs Certainty.

TakeAway:

An inference is a MUST-BE-TRUE statement - a 100% factually correct!
Any sub-scenario/cases which CAN shatter the conclusion is NEVER going to be the correct answer.
Moreover, Option-C CAN be discarded on grounds that it used information NOT supported by the argument.

Hello my honorable expert,
In the passage, the author is talking about US economy. In correct choice D, ''an economy'' could be India's economy!
Q1:
So, do you think that this conclusion has been drawn properly?

Q2:
Here,
-->Economy grew up
-->Energy consumption did not grew up
-->energy save till today 13 million barrels
How is it possible to guarantee that the economy will grow after today?
Thank you all..

Hello, Asad. Since others have posted well-reasoned responses to each answer choice, I will simply stick to your questions here.

Absolutely, and for the very reason you drew attention to: an economy is vague and can thus refer to any economy. The United States is being held up as a single example of a country with such an economy, but the fact that its economy has grown without consuming additional energy proves that the feat can be achieved. Whether India, Iceland, or Ivory Coast (three "I" countries that came to mind that are not really close to one another) adopted such a model is beside the point. If the U.S. can achieve growth while making energy-efficiency improvements, then so can another country.


I think you are twisting up your possibilities here. The correct answer indicates that some country is capable of producing an economy in which growth occurs without creating a greater energy burden. There is no mention of a guarantee anywhere in the passage or correct response. What happens to the U.S. economy and energy consumption beyond the time period presented is outside the scope of the passage. As explained above, the U.S. model for the purposes of the passage and question proves that economic growth can happen without leading to energy-consumption increases as well. What happens at any other time does not concern us.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, please ask.

- Andrew

It's ok, but don't you think that we're assuming outside knowledge here? If US can grow, then other country (e.g., India, Canada) can grow the economy-it's just an assumption which is NOT allowed in must be true/ draw the conclusion question. The whole passage is all about the US economy. So, should not we be specific in our thinking?
Here is an analogy:
Andrew did not write in the forum yesterday. He also did not write the day before yesterday. So, his friend (Mr, X) did not write 2 days in a row (conclusion).
^^ I've replaced the name ''Andrew" with "Mr. X", because every people in this group know that IF Andrew does not write anything in this forum for 2 days in a row, then his friend (Mr. X) also does not write anything in this forum for that 2 days in a row!
If I can replace the name ''Andrew" to "Mr. X", then i can also replace US to India, I guess.
Am I missing anything in my reasoning here?
Thanks for your cordial response.

All right, one more for the road. I think the issue is that you are trying to turn a question that relies on inductive reasoning into a logical syllogism instead. Again, the U.S. is just being held up as an example of a country that has done something, not as the one and only country that can do something. I think the question and answers are designed quite well, and I am positive that everything underwent thorough testing before ever reaching the test screen and a place in the OG Verbal Review thereafter. You are welcome to disagree, but it is always important to anchor your discussion of a question to the question itself, and I guess I am at a loss as to what else you would think to choose if not choice (D).

- Andrew

I marked the correct choice, but I failed to understand the last sentence in the passage. Does it mean the # of oil barrels saved per day was 13 million since 1973 or # of barrels saved in total were 13 million since 1973. Although from the sentence it seems like it is # of barrels saved per day, 13 million barrels is a huge number. Maybe I didn't understand the way the sentence is structured.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja EMPOWERgmatVerbal Bunuel

The number of barrels of oil being saved per day ... is now 13 million.
So 13 million is the number of barrels saved every day because of the improvements.

Hi,

What is the importance of second sentence in the passage? Can't we get the conclusion even without it?

Yes, you can properly draw the conclusion in (D) without the second sentence of the passage. That's completely acceptable -- the question doesn't specify that every piece of information in the passage must be used to support the conclusion. So long as the conclusion can be properly drawn from the information provided, we're golden. (D) is the only answer choice that fits in this case, so (D) is the winner.

For whatever it's worth, this doesn't happen very often on GMAT CR questions. In most cases, you'll need to think about the passage in its entirety, and won't have the luxury of ignoring entire sentences. This one is a rare exception.

I hope that helps!

Premise #1: US economy has experienced 33% growth
Premise #2: US energy consumption has not increased in the same period
Premise #3: Now, 13 million barrels of oil is being saved per day

If the information above is correct, which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn on the basis of it?

A. It is more difficult to find new sources of oil than to institute new energy-conservation measures. - the passage is not at all concerned about finding new sources of oil
B. Oil imports cannot be reduced unless energy consumption does not grow at all. - Correlation = Causation error here.
C. A reduction in the consumption of gasoline was the reason overall energy consumption remained steady. - The passage does not mention this
D. It is possible for an economy to grow without consuming additional energy. - based on premise #1 and premise #2, we can infer (D). Hence, (D) is the right answer choice

E. The development of nontraditional energy sources will make it possible for the United States economy to grow even faster. - the passage is not concerned with 'non-traditional' energy sources.

it's easiest question i have ever encountered in my whole Gmat prep the direct corelation being we have to understand is that no amount of energy consumption happened and the economy temendously there is no possiblity IMO D

From 1973 to 1986, growth in the United States economy was over 33 percent, while the percent growth in United States energy consumption was zero. The number of barrels of oil being saved per day by energy-efficiency improvements made since 1973 is now 13 million.

Inference :
Changes happened from 1973 - 1986
1. U.S economy grew over 33%
2. percent growth energy consumption was zero

Conclusion: economy can grow without increase in energy consumption as we can see every year 1 million consumption.

D. It is possible for an economy to grow without consuming additional energy.
This is only correct.

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.