Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil

Question

Environmentalist : The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned. Milville business spokesperson : Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution. Environmentalist : I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate. Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following? (A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances. (B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome. (C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means. (D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it. (E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people. Similar Question: environmentalist-snowmobiles-in-the-park-north-of-milville-create-una-190197.html

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Let's start by breaking down the exchange between the environmentalist and the business spokesperson:

The environmentalist says that snowmobiles should be banned because they create unacceptable levels of air pollution (eg an environmental concern).

The business spokesperson responds by saying that snowmobiles bring in many out-of-towners during the winter months, financially benefiting many local residents. The spokesperson then specifically acknowledges the environmental concern (ie does not disagree that snowmobiling causes air pollution) but maintains that the economic "pro" outweighs the environmental "con". Thus, the spokesperson concludes that economics dictate that the town should put up with the pollution.

The environmentalist then responds by stating that although snowmobiling may in fact bring in many people who want to snowmobile, snowmobiling keeps a great many cross-country skiers from visiting. This consequence has a  negative  impact on the economy, so the environmentalist concludes that economics do NOT dictate that the town should put up with the pollution.

Notice that the environmentalist does not dispute the spokesperson's claim that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners and thus has a positive economic consequence; rather, the environmentalist  adds  that snowmobiling also has a negative economic impact.

Now that we understand how the environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson, let's look at the answer choices:
 
First, what are the "desirable outcomes" referenced in this passage? 1) financial benefit to local residents and 2) less air pollution. Where do those "desirable outcomes" come from? 1) from bringing in out-of-towners (ie snowmobilers or cross-country skiers) and 2) from banning snowmobiling.

Notice that the spokesperson's argument does not require the assumption that either desirable outcome comes from only one set of circumstances. The spokesperson simply notes that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners which creates a financial benefit, he/she does not imply that this is the only way to achieve that benefit. The environmentalist does not challenge this assumption because the spokesperson never makes that assumption. Choice (A) can be eliminated.

As discussed in (A), less air pollution is a desirable outcome, but what is the negative aspect of this outcome? Well, in order to achieve it, the town would have to ban snowmobiling, preventing those out-of-towners (those who want to enjoy snowmobiling) from coming to town and financially benefiting the locals. According to the spokesperson, this negative outcome (less financial benefit from out-of-towners) outweighs the desirable outcome (less air pollution). The environmentalist challenges this assumption by pointing out an economic benefit that would occur if snowmobiling were banned: more cross-country skiers would come to town, creating a financial benefit and offsetting the negative economic impact assumed by the spokesperson. (B) is looking pretty good.

The benefit that the spokesperson desires is financial benefit to the local residents. Although the environmentalist does imply that financial benefit can be created by a different means (ie banning snowmobiling and thus attracting more cross-country skiers), the environmentalist does NOT suggest that banning snowmobiling would achieve a GREATER degree of financial benefit than allowing snowmobiling.

The environmentalist is simply trying to demonstrate that the negative economic impact assumed by the spokesperson would not outweigh the positive environmental impact. This argument would hold up if both means created the same financial benefit. Choice (C) can be eliminated.

Neither the spokesperson nor the environmentalist ever argues against the facts stated by the other person. Rather, each concedes the facts previously stated by the other person and simply adds new information to support a different conclusion. The environmentalist certainly does not claim that the spokesperson is "deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist's position," so choice (D) can be eliminated.

The environmentalist does not DENY that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners or that it creates a financial benefit to the local residents. The environmentalist simply presents an additional economic factor that the spokesperson did not mention: although snowmobiling may bring in many people who want to snowmobile (a financial positive for the locals), snowmobiling keeps a great many cross-country skiers from visiting (a financial negative for the locals).

Choice (E) can be eliminated, and we are left with (B).

KarishmaB · Answer

Here is the video solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/1K-6xTc8SZc Environmentalist: Ban snowmobiles because they create air pollution Business guy: Snowmobiling brings tourists and hence money. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution. Environmentalist: I disagree: Snowmobiles keep skiers away. The spokesperson points out a benefit of snowmobiling (financial benefit) that as per him, outweighs pollution impact. How does the environmentalist respond to the spokesperson’s argument? The environmentalist responds by pointing out another disadvantage of snowmobiling - financial loss by skiers not visiting (which along with pollution outweighs financial benefit that the spokesperson mentions). So, the ‘method of disagreement’ here is "One can challenge an assumption by giving additional data." A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances. Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's) What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances" No. The business guy does not say that only snowmobiling can bring in tourists and hence money. He says that snowmobiling brings in tourists and hence money and so is good. He does not say that allowing snowmobiles is the only circumstance that can lead to money. Hence, incorrect. B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome. Env responds by "challenging an assumption" (whose assumption? the business guy's) What is the assumption? "that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome." What is "certain desirable outcome"? Getting tourists What are "negative aspects"? Pollution and more to the point, effect of pollution i.e. keeping skiers away How is the outcome produced? By allowing snowmobiles In all, the env challenges the assumption that getting tourists outweighs effects of pollution. The business guy assumes that getting tourists monetarily outweighs the effects of pollution so we should put up with pollution. The env challenges it by saying that effects of pollution include negative monetary effects (skiers do not come) so how can you say that getting tourists outweighs the problems associated with pollution. This is correct. (C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means. The environmentalist does not imply a ‘greater degree’ at all. Hence, ignore this option. (D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.   The environmentalist does not claim that the spokesperson is misrepresenting anything. (E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people. The environmentalist does not say that the local residents are not benefited. Answer (B) Method Questions are discussed here: https://youtu.be/uA5aXAZI1Z8

Vinitkhicha1111 · Answer

I agree with  christoph  and IMO option A is more pertinent here as compared with B because in B the words "outweighed by" aren't correct and imply as if the pollution (negative aspect) is dominating over or surpassing the financial benefits (desirable outcome) WHEREAS the correct lingo should have mentioned that the pollution (negative aspect) OUTWEIGHS the financial benefits (desirable outcome) obtained by using the snowmobiles .Moreover, the environmentalist argues that the financial benefits as such can be obtained ( although degree of the benefit isn't known) through inviting the skiers by reducing the sound and noise pollution by use of snowmobiles. Other members, please provide your opinions regarding this.

mmagyar · Answer

OA is definitely B.

Reading your post, I think you have it backwards. Let's break down the argument, B, and then A (and then a note on C):

1. The environmentalist is saying that the snowmobiles cause pollution.
2. The business spokesperson says that we should put up with the pollution because it generates revenue. Basically, that the benefits of the revenue outweigh the negatives of the pollution.
3. The environmentalist responds by pointing out that the pollution also causes a decrease in a different revenue stream, the one from the skiers.

Basically, the environmentalist is pointing out another consideration that argues against the business spokesperson's idea. Specifically, the environmentalist is saying that the snowmobile revenue does not overcome the negatives of the pollution because it is not just snowmobile revenue v. pollution, but rather snowmobile revenue v. both pollution and skier revenue. This doesn't necessarily mean that the skier revenue is definitely more than the snowmobile revenue (the environmentalist could believe it to be or believe it not to be); instead, it means that the difference between the snowmobile revenue and the skier revenue (if any) is not more than the negatives of the pollution. Thus, when we are asked how the environmentalist responds, we need an answer that says that the environmentalist argues against the idea that the negatives of pollution are outweighed by the benefits of the revenue, not one that says that the skier revenue is more than the snowmobile revenue - the more/outweigh issue in the argument is really about money v. pollution (this is important for answer C). One thing to notice about A and B is that they start with "challenging an assumption that", meaning that the remainder of those answers should match the business spokesperson's assumption (that the snowmobile revenue is the best option) since that is what the environmentalist challenges.

B: "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome"

This answer tells us that the environmentalist is challenging the business spokesperson's assumption that a certain desirable outcome (maybe stopping the pollution) is outweighed by (not as good as) negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (maybe the lost snowmobile revenue). This fits exactly what we want because the environmentalist is saying that the business spokesperson is wrong for thinking that we shouldn't clean up pollution because of the money. I think you flipped this instead. Maybe you focused on the "desirable outcome" as instead being the snowmobile revenue? Maybe you missed the "challenging" word at the beginning and thought that it meant that the environmentalist believes in that assumption? Be careful when you read that you have everything in the right order. Slowing down and rechecking your thoughts can often lead to clarity.

A: "Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances"

What is the "desirable outcome" here? It definitely cannot be stopping the pollution because we are not talking about accomplishing stopping the pollution in "other" ways. Instead, the desirable outcome here would have to be keeping the snowmobile revenue (so this would have to be a different desirable outcome from the one in B). Thus, this answer would have to be saying that the environmentalist is arguing against the idea that the snowmobile revenue can come from only one set of circumstances.

That we are talking about other sources of revenue makes this very attractive, but the word "only" is extremely important here ("only" isn't always wrong, but you should always evaluate how it affects things!). With "only", this answer tells us that the environmentalist is saying that business spokesperson wrongly thinks that the snowmobile revenue cannot come from other sources. This doesn't match because, while the environmentalist is telling us that revenue can come from other sources, the business spokesperson never says that we cannot get money from other sources. This is the key here. It is entirely consistent with the business spokesperson's position that the business spokesperson thinks that there are other ways to make money (maybe a coffee stand?). So, the environmentalist is not arguing against the snowmobile revenue being the "only" way to achieve that outcome; instead, the environmentalist is telling us that the business spokesperson is wrong because the skier revenue would be lost too, so all of a sudden maybe the negative aspects of banning snowmobiles (lost revenue) isn't outweighing the pollution - maybe instead the skier revenue makes it a closer situation and the pollution is bad enough to lose a small amount of money. Thus the argument is more about which option is better, not whether something is the only option, meaning that A cannot be correct.

C: "Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means."

This sounds really close, because the environmentalist seems to suggest that there is a benefit that the spokesperson desires (snowmobile revenue) that we could get "in greater degree by a different means" (from the skiers), but it doesn't match as well for a few reasons. First, "maintaining" is a little too strong here. It suggests that the speaker has already said that this is true. If I say A is true and you say B is true and then I say A is still true, then I maintained my position. Instead, the environmentalist never began by discussing the financial benefits and so cannot "maintain" that position. Much more importantly, the author never actually says that we can get more money from skiers, it is only suggested. The problem with that is it is entirely possible and consistent with the argument that the lost snowmobile revenue (say $10,000) is more than the lost skier revenue (say $9,000) and that the difference ($1,000) is not enough to justify putting up with the pollution. Thus, the environmentalist doesn't have to believe that the monetary benefit could be achieved in a greater degree (more money) by another means (skier revenue); instead, the environmentalist is saying that the skier revenue makes it okay to stop the pollution and lose the snowmobile revenue. This is different than B because B just says that one situation is outweighed by another, while C says that a specific benefit must be able to be achieved to a greater extent through another means and we don't know that that is true.

fguardini1, Aristocrat, and nerd got pretty close to explaining it correctly a few posts above - I just wanted to expound to, hopefully, make it very clear

Vinitkhicha1111 · Answer

YES I agree with your solution but you have used the same point in your solution of desirable outcome OUTWEIGHS the negative effects and not that THE DESIRABLE OUTCOME is OUTWEIGHED by pollution. My concern was the way in which the Option B has been written and not with its structure. If I am not wrong..??

KarishmaB · Answer

You have a point Vinit. It certainly seems to be an error in the question since the intent is certainly clear. The assumption is that the positive outweighs the negative, not that the positive is outweighed by the negative. It becomes nonsensical if we say that the positive is outweighed by the negative i.e. the negative is stronger - whereas the business rep's argument is opposite. Hence (B) should be framed as desirable outcomes outweighs the negative effects. I suggest you move on.

warriorguy · Answer

Tough one but will go with option B.

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome (great financial benefit from Snowmobiling) is outweighed by negative aspects (noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate keep many cross-country skiers away from the town) associated with producing that outcome.

Hatakekakashi · Answer

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances. -  there is no desired outcome

B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.  Seems good

C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means.  there are no benefits spoken about

D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.  no misrepresentation at all

E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people.   irrelevant

Hence B

Posted from my mobile device

AD2GMAT · Answer

A very good question, and certainly hard one to solve under 3 minutes...
Dear  GMATNinja  /  GMATNinja Two Any tips how to save time in such questions?

GMATNinja · Answer

Sadly, there aren't really any magic bullets that will make you faster at CR, other than just getting better at reading passages in general -- and making sure that you're being efficient in your approach to questions. This article doesn't directly address speed all that much, but it'll give you an idea of how to think optimally about CR, and start to build some good habits: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43170.html. In particular, some people end up answering questions more slowly when they fail to invest enough time in the passages themselves. If you move on to the answer choices before you've fully understood the passage itself, you'll waste a ton of time going back and forth between the answer choices and the passage. I'm not sure whether that applies to you, but it's a problem that we see fairly often. And if you try to "save time" by reading the passage faster, it can work against you: you'll make more errors, and you'll waste time spinning your wheels on the answer choices. And if you're simply cursed with a slow reading speed, CR can be really tough, but you'll get stronger at reading them with enough practice. Sorry that I can't offer anything more concrete to speed you up! It's one of the annoying things about the GMAT: CR and RC just don't give us a lot of room for shortcuts, sadly.

GMATNinja · Answer

Oh, and one other thing I should have said, DAakash7 : this particular passage is pretty tough, so there's no shame in taking some extra time on it.

iceman1212 · Answer

Taking the question and answer choices verbatim, I would choose A. (Others have commented on why C, D and E can be eliminated so I will focus on why option B can be eliminated.)

If B is indeed the correct answer as per an official solution, then I think that answer choice B may have been transcribed incorrectly from source material.

Here's why I think that B can be eliminated, if we take the answer choices from the original post verbatim. Given the question is focused on how the environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson, we can deduce that the "assumption" that is referenced in option B refers to that made by the business spokesperson. However, in his/her statement, the business spokesperson never makes the assumption that a "certain desirable outcome" (i.e., financial benefit) is outweighed by "negative aspects" (i.e., pollution). In fact, the business person claims the opposite to be true - he believes that the desirable outcome of financial benefit outweighs the negative aspects of pollution.

GMATNinja · Answer

Yes, the business person does claim that the desirable outcome of financial benefit outweighs the negative outcome of higher air pollution. But there are two potential desirable outcomes: financial benefits and LOWER pollution levels.

The business spokesperson would agree that lowering pollution is a desirable outcome. But the spokesperson believes that the benefit of lowering pollution is outweighed by the financial cost of lowering pollution. In other words, the business person believes that  lowering  pollution (i.e. a "certain desirable outcome") is outweighed by the  loss  of financial benefit (i.e. the negative aspects associated with lowering pollution). This fits perfectly with choice (B).

As for (A), as described in the  original explanation ,

First, what are the "desirable outcomes" referenced in this passage? 1) financial benefit to local residents and 2) less air pollution. Where do those "desirable outcomes" come from? 1) from bringing in out-of-towners (ie snowmobilers or cross-country skiers) and 2) from banning snowmobiling.

Notice that the spokesperson's argument does not require the assumption that either desirable outcome comes from only one set of circumstances. The spokesperson simply notes that snowmobiling brings in out-of-towners which creates a financial benefit, he/she does not imply that this is the only way to achieve that benefit. The environmentalist does not challenge this assumption because the spokesperson never makes that assumption. Choice (A) can be eliminated.

Choice (B) is the best answer. I hope that helps! And more importantly: welcome to GMAT Club!!!

ash091109 · Answer

The guy may mean that thought there are several other ways of economic benefit but motorballing may be the major and thus its absence can cause economic concerns.
And when the environmentalist says that he disagrees and points out another revenue stream, he is not saying that the other guy falsely assumed that it's only motoballing that can bring revenue He is actually saying that the negative aspect of banning (absence of motor-balling) wouldn't outweigh the desired outcome as then another revenue stream opens up and in doing so he challenges the same assumption given in option (B)

GMATNINJA let me know if i am along the right line of thinking.

GMATNinja · Answer

Thanks  ash091109  for your reply!

I think you are on the right track when you wrote this: "He is actually saying that the negative aspect of banning (absence of motor-balling) wouldn't outweigh the desired outcome as then another revenue stream opens up and in doing so he challenges the same assumption given in option (B)..."

The desired outcome in this case is less air pollution. In order to achieve that outcome, the town would have to ban snowmobiling. The negative aspect of this ban would be a loss of great financial benefit to the locals. According to the  business spokesperson , having less air pollution (desired outcome) is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (loss of financial benefit).

The  environmentalist  challenges this assumption. The financial loss would not be so great because, if snowmobiling is banned, there would be additional revenue from the cross-country skiers.

I hope this helps!

Namangupta1997 · Answer

Hi  AndrewN

I chose E and I am not sure how it is incorrect. I think the key to analyze E is to pin point exactly what the environmentalist disagrees when he says "I disagree". Is it the fact that economics dictate ? Or is it the spokesperson's position that snowboarding brings a lot of tourists ? I can't tell.

If he is disagreeing to the fact that economics dictate that the pollution has to be put up with, wouldn't that make E correct ?

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Namangupta1997 . I agree that we are forced to place  I disagree  in a larger context. But the passage takes care of that for us, using a colon to introduce an explanation, as in,  I disagree  because ...  Look at what follows that colon and ask yourself what the information pertains to, that, to use your own line of reasoning,  economics dictate that we put up with the pollution , or that  {s}nowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months .

Now, it should be clear that there is no disagreement with the latter. The environmentalist does not dispute the claim that many people visit Milville to snowmobile, only drawing attention to the fact that another group of people,  cross-country skiers , does not visit in  great  numbers. We can only reasonably interpret the objection as one going against the former claim. Does answer choice (E) address this interpretation?

The  benefit  we see in the passage is the financial gain to  many local residents  by allowing snowmobilers access in winter months. The environmentalist seems more concerned with the  noise and pollution  than with any financial benefits to the townspeople. In fact, there is no mention of any benefits at all in the response quoted above. Simply put, we cannot get behind (E) as the answer we seek.

Perhaps that option makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Namangupta1997 · Answer

Hi  AndrewN . Thanks for the explanation and clearing up the "I disagree" part.

Reading your explanation, another thing comes to mind though. Please correct me if I am wrong. Even if, for a moment, we ignore what exactly is the environmentalist is disagreeing to, we would have to stretch the logic too far to conclude that he is indeed "denying the benefits". As you said, he is more concerned with the noise and pollution, we don't have a solid reason to identify any attack he throws at the supposed benefits reaped by the townspeople.

AndrewN · Answer

Yes, I agree. It is hard to say that the environmentalist is  denying the benefits  to the townspeople when the response provided goes in a different direction altogether, focusing on a different group and on environmental problems. Our goal is not, as you put it,  to stretch the logic , and we do indeed need to  have a solid reason  to get behind an answer. Any way you look at (E), it comes up short, so you have to look elsewhere for a reasonable, more fitting alternative.

- Andrew

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Mil

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