Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because

Question

Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because they have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research that characterizes the issue as severe. However, these same oil companies have also invested millions of dollars in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change.

Which of the following best explains the apparent discrepancy in the situation described above?

(A) The oil companies only recently began investing in scientific research to address climate change issues.

(B) The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.

(C) The government action opposed by the oil companies would negatively impact their profits.

(D) The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven.

(E) The oil companies don't believe that any scientific research related to climate change will ultimately serve their interests.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Some scientific research characterises global warming issue as severe.
Oil companies undermine this research and oppose govt action to limit global warming.
Yet, oil companies spend tons of money in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change.

This is a paradox. On one hand they undermine research that says global warming is severe. On the other hand they are themselves investing money in how to address issue of climate change (making us believe that they think the issue is severe). How can we explain what oil companies are doing?

A.) The oil companies only recently began investing in scientific research to address climate change issues.

It doesn't tell us that they have stopped opposing govt action and hence have changed their mind recently.

B.) The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.

Oil companies are investing to make practical tech that will be used to combat global warming. This implies that they are using this money to create future business for themselves. Now it makes sense. Basically, they are against govt regulations so that their profits do not suffer. Then, they are investing their own money in tech that they can sell later to combat climate change. So right now they are creating the problem of climate change and want to continue doing it for the sake of their profits by selling oil and later they will sell their tech to clean up the problem they created in the first place - climate change. So both their actions make sense now. 
I do agree that the wording is a little off and it takes a whole lot of effort to realise what it is trying to say.

C.) The government action opposed by the oil companies would negatively impact their profits.

This is why they are opposing govt action, ok. But it doesn't explain why they are investing their own money in climate change research.

D.) The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven.

Doesn't explain that why are they then investing their own money in climate change tech?

E.) The oil companies don't believe that any scientific research related to climate change will ultimately serve their interests.

Then why would they invest their money in research -we don't know.

Answer (B)

methevoid · Answer

Premise 1 - Oil Companies - Poor Corporate Citizen because they oppose Govt Action on Global warming which is based on scientific studies that term Global Warming as severe.

Premise 2  - Same companies spend dollars in scientific study to study effects of climatic change.

To solve this discrepancy that Oil Companies are on one hand opposing govt action (to oppose global warming, based on scientific studies) and on the other hand same companies are spending dollars to address Climatic change.

We need some info which can justify this disconnect between money spent by oil companies and where it is spent.

(A) Time duration not sufficient. 
 (B)  Very finely proves that if the Oil companies are putting dollars to find out effects of climatic change then they very well believe that global warming can bring climatic change, thus they cannot refute Govt's action to oppose global warming by undermining the scientific study  
(C) Profits. Not related here. 
(D) Incorrect because if that scientific study is not proven yet then there is no discrepancy. 
(E) What oil companies believe or not does not help solve the discrepancy.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The passage describes an apparent discrepancy. On the one hand oil companies undermine scientific research that portrays global warming as a severe problem, presumably because this research will lead to government action that might harm the companies' profits. On the other hand, these same companies invest millions of dollars in climate change research. The correct answer must provide a motive for the companies to invest in certain research related to global warming.

(A) This choice establishes a time frame for when the oil companies began investing research dollars. However, it does not provide a reason as to why they would make this investment.

(B) CORRECT.  This choice provides a motive for companies to invest in global warming research. If the research is specifically geared at developing technologies used to combat global warming, this research represents a long-term strategy for finding new ways for the companies to profit. This is in contrast with the research that the oil companies oppose - research focused on the severity and immediacy of the issue, a focus which might lead to government action that could have a negative impact on the profitability of the oil companies in the short term.

(C) The fact that the government action would negatively affect the oil companies explains why they would oppose this scientific research. It does not provide a reason why they would also invest in scientific research related to global warming.

(D) The fact that the scientific data related to the severity of global warming is not definitive does not provide a reason as to why oil companies would invest millions of dollars in research that accepts that global warming will have long-term affects.

(E) If oil companies didn't believe that any scientific research related to climate change will serve their interests, there would be no reason for them to invest any money in such research.

arvs212 · Answer

A,C and E>>i think are irrelevant. was stuck b/w B and D.... i go for B...OA plzzz.. :?:

whatthehell · Answer

IMO B, OA please??

While D might be tempting, it will not help answer both the contradictory premises. 1) Undermining Government by saying that the global warming is severe 2) spending millions of dollars in research in long term effect of climate change

B will answer both of these discripiencies, since companies still do not change their position from undermining govt, at the same time invest money on further research.
The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.

D) The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven. - this will give us the reason for the "undermining of govt" but doesnt give a reason for companies to invest.

Target760 · Answer

my choice too was B

To begin its easy to boil down to two options B & E. in case of E its says that companies believe that NO scientific research wold be beneficial. this is too extreme poison which does not correspond with argument that they invest in research for long term effects . . else why would they invest. so this option does not work.

now we are left with B and that's the answer. (though justifying B is a bit difficult, process of elimination worked for me)

hermit84 · Answer

I had to chose b/w B and D, and I think D is better, any thoughts, anyone?
How do I eliminate D?

Jp27 · Answer

hermit84 - question asks us to explains the apparent discrepancy? So what's the discrepancy?   companies have invested millions of dollars in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change   BUT   they have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research that characterizes the issue as severe  
so the correct answer should tie both sides of the argument i.e give us a rational as to why company did both the stuff, which is sort of contradictory to begin with. Now Option D says "The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven" Does it answer why Companies oppose the G's research - NO? Does it answer why they invested in their own research ? - NO so this is Out of scope...
Even if this answer choice answers 1 of the question also it CANNOT BE the correct answer, as the right answer should EXPLAIN BOTH SIDES, which is very important!

please let me know in case of any questions... cheers

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.

Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because

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

Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because

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