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

 It is currently 14 Nov 2018, 08:30

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### \$450 Tuition Credit & Official CAT Packs FREE

November 15, 2018

November 15, 2018

10:00 PM MST

11:00 PM MST

EMPOWERgmat is giving away the complete Official GMAT Exam Pack collection worth \$100 with the 3 Month Pack (\$299)
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

# Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1174
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2008, 09:33
4
13
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:51) correct 35% (02:07) wrong based on 1339 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.

(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.

(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.

(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.

(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1227
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2008, 21:59
2
1
goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that
conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were
put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the
government.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against
the suggestion above?

A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parksmight join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over theirleadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they wannt to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives. -> this says private players dont agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE

C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have toseek contributions from major donors and general public. ->irrelevant here

D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain parkareas. -> irrelevant

E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the bestefforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered byinsufficient resources.
-> too specific examples -> this is outside scope of argument since giving ownership to private players does not lead to extinction of condor but other reasons could also lead to.ELIMINATE

IMO (A)
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1227
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 09:55
A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -> If this were realistic possibility then it would harm the conservation objective.Since the objective is to conserve natural resources of the parks.Thats Y they want to approach private players .Hence if this were correct argument falls apart.hence IMO (A)

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. -> this says private players don't agree with the best ways to achieve conservation.What if they have better ways .this is a vague statement.There are possibilities they have better innovative methods and approaches than currently best ones ELIMINATE

In my opinion (B) is quite a generic condition and does not clearly pose a threat to conservation of natural resources.
But consider (A) those wiling to exploit natural resouces will lead the firms.Hence the main purpose of private take over is flawed.(A) directly attacks the argument .Again negate the same it will support the argument.thanks for the OA.
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2011
Posts: 309
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 620 Q39 V35
GMAT 2: 620 Q43 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q50 V40
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2011, 12:53
2
I would go with A,
This was a pretty tricky one ,
this is my explanation for the argument :

UtterNonsense wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

A. Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the
private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
Possible solution.see explanation below.

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
Possible solution.see explanation below.

C. If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions
from major donors and general public.
argument doesn't mention anything about contributions or if the government too is collecting contributions.Eliminate

D. There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
Maybe.but is not a strong enough argument.If anything competition will get us the best private environmental group. Eliminate

E. Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the
private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
Irrelevant.Eliminate

Now the questions says :Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above
A although far fetched,is realistically possible. B is also a realistic possibility.
now if A and B were to come true. the consequences of A are much worse than B .
Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives but at least they try to achieve the conservation objective.
If someone looking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks joins the private environmental groups as member and eventually takes over their leadership : this situation is worse than the previous one.

Consequences of A > consequences of B
Hence A is a stronger argument.
_________________

My GMAT Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/third-time-s-a-charm-142800.html#p1145912
Quant Concept Videos : http://gmatlife.blogspot.com/2012/07/gmat-quant-videos.html
My GMAT Blog : http://gmatlife.blogspot.com/

Intern
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 35
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2011, 15:52
I choose A.

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
As regulations/restrictions are framed by government, the government will never seek to abolish the restrictions. If the park is managed by private environmental groups, the people seeking to abolish the restrictions that stops them from exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private group and get those laws/restrictions abolished.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. (might arrive at alternate ways to achieve the conservation objectives)
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public. [color=#0000FF](out of scope)

(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas. (this will lead to conservation)
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources. (out of scope)
Manager
Status: Bell the GMAT!!!
Affiliations: Aidha
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 143
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V37
GMAT 2: 620 Q49 V27
GMAT 3: 700 Q49 V36
WE: Other (Other)
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2011, 17:50
IMO A. The argument mentions that the conservation objectives would be better served by private environmental groups. In other words, the private environmental groups will conserve better whatever is given to them. In this case its parks and hence may be the natural resources. We can attempt to guess the answer with this information only. We are required to weaken the argument. So lets ask ourselves, why should the parks be handed over to private groups? The obvious answer is because they conserve better. Now what if they don't conserve or may be rather exploit the resources - in both these cases the conclusion will be weakened. A does that.

goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -It says people who dnt want resources to be conserved will join private groups and hence will eventually exploit the resources. CORRECT
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.-we are not bothered about the ways to achieve the objective. Argument does not talk about the objectives at all.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.-out of scope
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.again when you read this you should ask - so what?
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
out of scope and very specific
_________________

If my post did a dance in your mind, send me the steps through kudos :)

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 794
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2012, 11:04
goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

In order to solve this type of CR problem (weaken the conclusion), you need to properly understand the argument structure, especially any key assumptions (unstated by required by the argument).

Here is the argument structure:
Some [people/groups] favor putting government enterprises under private control. Premise
The national park system is run by the government. Premise
Conservation efforts would be better served if private environmental groups operated/financed National Parks. Suggestion/Conclusion

Back to assumptions - they bridge the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion. In our case here the premises only establish that some people favor private control and the national parks are currently run by the government. How can we conclude anything about how well the conservation efforts will be served? We have to make assumptions about the private environmental groups ability to serve these conservation efforts. Our weakening answer will most strongly attack the assumption that private environmental groups can and will serve conservation efforts.

A. If people seeking to abolish evironmental regulations gained control over the private environmental groups running the national parks, we could no longer conclude that conservation efforts would be served. This seriously weakens the conclusion (suggestion).
B. This does weaken the argument somewhat because it casts some doubt on the ability to provide the BEST conservation efforts. The suggestion, however, is that private groups will better serve conservation efforts, not that they will always provide the best possible solutions. While it does cast some doubt, it does not invalidate the conclusion (suggestion) as A does.
C/D/E. All are out of scope.

A is correct.
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Senior Manager
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 454
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2012, 06:10
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

If there will be the privatization of govt.enterprises then the "bad people" would be willing to join the pvt. groups in order to get advantages, they can abolisg the restrictions on exploitation on natural resources and hence ruin the environment for their own profits.

(A) wins
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 37
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2016, 16:27
Why not E?

E suggests the failure of Private group despite no crunch of resources. This Shows that Conservation might not be better served by private group.

_________________

Consider giving Kudos, if you find worth it !!

Manager
Status: Private GMAT Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 115
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2016, 20:58
2
AbhiGarg2007 wrote:
Why not E?

E suggests the failure of Private group despite no crunch of resources. This Shows that Conservation might not be better served by private group.

Let's look at this statement:

X is more intelligent than Y.

Can the above statement be weakened by saying "X cannot solve some z type of problem"?

Why?

Because we don't know whether Y can solve z type of problem. If both cannot solve one problem, we don't get to know anything about their relative intelligence.

Similarly, in this question, option E tells us that private environmental groups cannot do the given thing. But the question is: can government do that thing? We are not given. Thus, we can't say whether one is better than the other. Thus, this option has no impact.

Does it help?

Regards,
CJ
_________________
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2108
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2017, 21:33
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. - Correct -- This says that privatization might result in abolishment of restrictions
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. - Incorrect - We are not sure since we don't know whether government enterprises always agree on the best ways
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and the general public. - irrelevant
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas. - Incorrect - this does not look bad -- more competition, in general, is better
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources - Incorrect - we don't know what would happen to California condor if the control stays with government

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1224
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2017, 06:55
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -Correct. If the people who want to exploit the conditions become managers of the parks then the idea of giving control of parks to private organisations is bad
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. -Okay, they might not, but still they might be in a better position than government to handle parks.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and the general public. -Extension of park is out of scope of the argument
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas. -Competition is always healthy. Neverthless, this option is irrelevant
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources. -Out of scope
_________________
Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2018
Posts: 104
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2018, 03:18
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
-- This is the answer. Explains why private environmental group will not be able to fulfill conservative objective.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
-- "might not always agree on the best ways" ?? We don't always need the best way , we just need to fulfill the conservative objectives.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and the general public.
-- Irrelevant
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
-- Competition is actually good. They will be motivated to fulfill the goal.
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.
-- This choice is too specific.
VP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1283
Location: India
GMAT 1: 480 Q38 V22
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2018, 02:50
goalsnr wrote:
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.

(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.

(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.

(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.

(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

C, D, and E are Irrelevant. Only A and B are weakener.

A is better than B as latter is partially weakener.

Though I marked B, I understood that why A is better. I read all the answer choices but A.
_________________

"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."

Intern
Status: Applying
Affiliations: test
Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 34
Location: India
Yawer: Yawer
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 200 Q33 V33
WE: Consulting (Internet and New Media)
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2018, 16:31
I do not agree with the OA. People who can join the environmental groups can very well join the government and its lobby groups.
Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private &nbs [#permalink] 24 Jul 2018, 16:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by