GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Aug 2018, 19:59

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

MBA Section Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5121
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2017, 20:46
6
37
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (01:45) correct 52% (01:51) wrong based on 1173 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 7: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here

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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

_________________

Have an MBA application Question? ASK ME ANYTHING!

My Stuff: Four Years to 760 | MBA Trends for Indian Applicants

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Most Helpful Expert Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1909
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2017, 20:47
9
6
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:
Quote:
A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.

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.

Quote:
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 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).
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

General Discussion
Retired Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 564
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Premium Member
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2017, 21:32
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 02 Mar 2017
Posts: 269
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2017, 21:44
1
Using POE

A--->Although an assumption is challenged its not about "desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances."

B--->Correct answer.The assumption is that negative aspect associated with banning the snowmobiles outweigh desirable outcome.

C--->"greater degree"-->no such claim is there and The information is put to challenge,not to provide an alternate mean

D--->Not true

E---->" great financial benefit of many local residents" He does not deny this information
_________________

Kudos-----> If my post was Helpful

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 19
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 03:11
I would go with A for the very simple reason that the environmentalist contests spokesperson's idea that out-of-towners come for snowmobiling (set of circumstances), bringing revenue for the town (desirable outcome) by pointing out the loss of income as many cross-country skiers do not visit the town for increased pollution due to snowmobiling. This reasoning clearly implies that the desirable outcome of financial benefit can be fulfilled by another set of circumstances (banning snowmobiling -> inviting cross-country skiers -> sustaining or increasing the revenue for the town).

B in my opinion is a classic trap. It states: Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome (financial benefit) is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome (what are the negative aspects? Pollution or loss of financial benefit as skiers don't come to the town? Clearly, it cannot be the latter as financial benefit itself is the desirable outcome and its loss cannot be the negative aspect - has to be something else. Finally, if pollution is the negative aspect, then it is as good as ignoring the last statement by Environmentalist!)

Rest, I leave it to GMATNinja :)
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 19 Mar 2016
Posts: 43
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Consumer Electronics)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 05:45
Using POE I've zeroed my answer on two options A and E. I'll finally go with E.

The environmentalist denies that the effects of bringing snowmobiles in the town have proved beneficial to the residents. The cross-country skiers don't come to the town because of the noise pollution.
_________________

Please correct me in case I'm wrong; consider giving kudos, otherwise.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 251
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GRE 1: Q167 V147
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 06:22
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 7: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS


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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.


I vote for (C).
The environmentalist states that great many skier are kept from visiting Milville.
IMHO,it should be that there is some other mean to bring people in,while maintaining the acceptable level of noise and pollution.
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 735
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Reviews Badge
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 10 May 2017, 10:31
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

Originally posted by Hatakekakashi on 10 May 2017, 07:21.
Last edited by Hatakekakashi on 10 May 2017, 10:31, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 12
Location: Argentina
GMAT 1: 650 Q43 V36
GPA: 3.4
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 07:36
I will go with A. The Env. challenges the assumption that a great financial benefit can only come by accepting the snowmobiling and the pollution it brings, by stating that this financial benefit can also come from another sources, such as the arrival of cross country skiers.
first post in the forum!!
regards
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 12
Location: Argentina
GMAT 1: 650 Q43 V36
GPA: 3.4
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 14:01
GMATNinja wrote:
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:
Quote:
A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.

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.

Quote:
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 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).


Great explanation! I answered A, but now I must concur that the spokesperson never assummed that there was only 1 set of circumstances.
thanks!
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1851
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2017, 01:49
warriorguy wrote:
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.


I do not get it,
1/ assumption is what is not explicitly stated
2/ why environmentalists challenge the idea that desirable outcome IS OUTWEIGHED by negative aspects. It should be "outweigh"
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 637
Location: India
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2017, 19:39
1
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 7: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here

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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

Not convinced by OA. E actually says what B says. The effect of financial benefit because of visitors is actually offset by prevention of coming of visitors because of pollution. B also says that. Also I cannot see an assumption being challenged as B says. What is the assumption? It is just stating of facts by the spokesperson
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Feb 2016
Posts: 103
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V36
GPA: 3.12
WE: Education (Internet and New Media)
Reviews Badge
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2017, 20:50
[quote="souvik101990"]

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 7: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here

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.

Pre thinking
Environmentalist:proposes an action
Spokesperson: responds by stating the ignored information
Environmentalist:find flaw in spokesperson info

Assumption of spokesperson
The out of Towner's does not cause any revenue loss in other sports activities.

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.
Environmentalist does challenge an assumption but does not propose any alternate circumstances
B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
This is true as it clearly states that the revenue from one sport dotesnot compensate revenue losss from other sports.
C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means.
Environmentalist finds flaw in the spokesperson argument but does not provide alternate solution.
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.
Spokesperson doesn't attcj the environmentalist argument rather proposes an alternate advantage by stating the ignored facts.
E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people.
Environmentalist does not deny anything rather attacks the spokesperson argument by stating ignored facts.
_________________

Never stop fighting until you arrive at your destined place - that is, the unique you. Have an aim in life, continuously acquire knowledge, work hard, and have the perseverance to realise the great life. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1851
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 03:07
RaguramanS wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 7: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here

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.

Pre thinking
Environmentalist:proposes an action
Spokesperson: responds by stating the ignored information
Environmentalist:find flaw in spokesperson info

Assumption of spokesperson
The out of Towner's does not cause any revenue loss in other sports activities.

A) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances.
Environmentalist does challenge an assumption but does not propose any alternate circumstances
B) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome.
This is true as it clearly states that the revenue from one sport dotesnot compensate revenue losss from other sports.
C) Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means.
Environmentalist finds flaw in the spokesperson argument but does not provide alternate solution.
D) Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it.
Spokesperson doesn't attcj the environmentalist argument rather proposes an alternate advantage by stating the ignored facts.
E) Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those people.
Environmentalist does not deny anything rather attacks the spokesperson argument by stating ignored facts.


I believe B should have some modifications.
"challenging assumption" means go against that assumption. Nevertheless, "certain desirable outcome...." is what is assumed by the economists.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Feb 2016
Posts: 103
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V36
GPA: 3.12
WE: Education (Internet and New Media)
Reviews Badge
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 03:48
chesstitans wrote:

I believe B should have some modifications.
"challenging assumption" means go against that assumption. Nevertheless, "certain desirable outcome...." is what is assumed by the economists.

@chesstians: Can you please elaborate on what is the outcome desired by economists
_________________

Never stop fighting until you arrive at your destined place - that is, the unique you. Have an aim in life, continuously acquire knowledge, work hard, and have the perseverance to realise the great life. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1851
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 05:05
RaguramanS wrote:
chesstitans wrote:

I believe B should have some modifications.
"challenging assumption" means go against that assumption. Nevertheless, "certain desirable outcome...." is what is assumed by the economists.

@chesstians: Can you please elaborate on what is the outcome desired by economists


I am talking about what is stated in B.
I believe B should remove the word "challenging"
Otherwise, if you read B carefully, B is completely contrasting to the assumption made by the economist because of "challenging"
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 637
Location: India
QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 05:34
1
Dear Raguraman,

I agree about the assumption of the spokesperson but unless one wants to nitpick with semantics , one cannot find E saying anything different from what B says. In the context "denying" is just disagreeing with the argument of the spokesperson that there is financial benefit.

As a matter of fact the environmentalist's reply is mainly about disagreeing with the conclusion that there is financial benefit than challenging the assumption. Strictly speaking, taking something as true without proof is different from being oblivious of it. The former is properly called assumption while the latter is ignorance. We do not know which one it is. But in this case we can safely say that the environmentalist is disagreeing with the conclusion.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Feb 2016
Posts: 103
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V36
GPA: 3.12
WE: Education (Internet and New Media)
Reviews Badge
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 06:50
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
.

Dear SravnaTestPrep
I believe Option E is too narrow to choose

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

An effect: Financial gain
Certain group of people: the out of towners or local residents
those people: the the out of towners or local residents

1.Option E says The Environmentalist responds to spokesperson by disagreeing the fact that financial benefit the out of towners had actually benefiited the out of towners

2.Option E says The Environmentalist responds to spokesperson by disagreeing the fact that financial benefit the local residents had actually benefiited the the local residents

In the option Certain group of people and those peole can be either the out of towners or local residents cant be both

If the option E could have been as follows then, it might be correct

Option E says The Environmentalist responds to spokesperson by disagreeing the fact that financial benefit that out of towners brought to local residents had actually benefited the the local residents


Please correct me if my thought process doesnt align with the context.
_________________

Never stop fighting until you arrive at your destined place - that is, the unique you. Have an aim in life, continuously acquire knowledge, work hard, and have the perseverance to realise the great life. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 637
Location: India
Re: QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 08:01
RaguramanS wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
.

Dear SravnaTestPrep
I believe Option E is too narrow to choose

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

An effect: Financial gain
Certain group of people: the out of towners or local residents
those people: the the out of towners or local residents

1.Option E says The Environmentalist responds to spokesperson by disagreeing the fact that financial benefit the out of towners had actually benefiited the out of towners

2.Option E says The Environmentalist responds to spokesperson by disagreeing the fact that financial benefit the local residents had actually benefiited the the local residents

In the option Certain group of people and those peole can be either the out of towners or local residents cant be both

If the option E could have been as follows then, it might be correct

Option E says The Environmentalist responds to spokesperson by disagreeing the fact that financial benefit that out of towners brought to local residents had actually benefited the the local residents


Please correct me if my thought process doesnt align with the context.

Dear Raguraman,

Thanks for responding. My understanding says that both certain group of people and those people refer to the local residents because of the context. The argument you might see is about the benefit to the local residents. So the reference is to the local residents.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 637
Location: India
QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 14:56
Folks,

I generally have a problem with many of the assumption questions. A true assumption should strictly follow given the premises and the conclusion. As I pointed out ignorance of facts or at the other extreme knowledge of more facts than the opponent can also be the cases instead of the supposed assumption.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville &nbs [#permalink] 01 Jul 2017, 14:56

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 29 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

QOTD: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.