It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 08:32

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private

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

Hide Tags

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

Reviews Badge
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2008, 10:33
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

63% (01:19) correct 37% (01:37) wrong based on 1158 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 262

Kudos [?]: 348 [0], given: 2

Location: nj
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2008, 11:28
IMO A

the argument talks about changing the leadership to private groups. so if old leaders come take over the leadership of private groups nothing would change eventually as far as conservative objectives are concerned.

Kudos [?]: 348 [0], given: 2

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 7

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2008, 11:29
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.

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives.

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

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

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.


IMO E

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 7

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 959

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 5

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2008, 12:27
I choose A).

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 5

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2008, 12:38
IMO B.

The main point of the argument is that Conversational objectives will be better achieved it it is given to private operators.
B states that private owners may not always adopt the best way of achieving Conversational objectives which contradicts the main point of the argument.


OA Please.

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

Reviews Badge
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2008, 18:09
grepro wrote:
IMO B.

The main point of the argument is that Conversational objectives will be better achieved it it is given to private operators.
B states that private owners may not always adopt the best way of achieving Conversational objectives which contradicts the main point of the argument.


OA Please.


I chose B too. But thats not the OA.

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

Kudos [?]: 430 [1], given: 0

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2008, 22:59
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 430 [1], given: 0

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1509

Kudos [?]: 1070 [0], given: 1

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2008, 05:44
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.

B. Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieveconservation objectives.

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

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

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.



I choose C as my answer. If the private enterprise will need financial contributions from the general public, the the private enterprise will be influenced by the public and will not be applying its typical private enterprise approach.

Kudos [?]: 1070 [0], given: 1

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

Reviews Badge
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2008, 09:49
spriya wrote:
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)


The explanation you have given is same as given in OG. But I still do'nt understand why A is better than B.
Both in A and B, it is indicated that private parties cannot meet the conservation goals. To discard B and choose A we will have to stretch the argument.
Anyways OA is A.

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

Reviews Badge
Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2008, 09:50
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?

Kudos [?]: 875 [0], given: 10

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

Kudos [?]: 430 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2008, 10:55
goalsnr wrote:
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?


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

Kudos [?]: 430 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2010
Posts: 164

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 6

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2010, 07:40
Conclusion : private groups will manage parks better.
Premise : conservation objectives will be taken care better by them if they are put in charge of operating and financing the parks.

So the answer choice should tell us that private groups will not achieve their goal. Most correct answer will be against the premise is that they will not able to conserve the park resources but worsen them. So A.


(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.

This answer tells us groups would not do their job properly. But not a strong point like choice A which tells that the private group will abandon all restrictions against exploitation of naturalresources. i.e. it would not conserve but support in exploitation.

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

This is not relevant as it talks about extension of park.

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

Not relevant as it talks about competition and control among private groups. Not directly talking about conservation objective

(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

It talks about some endangered species might die even though private groups put in their efforts. Some positive note on private group. So not the answer.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 6

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 44

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2010, 22:09
Its a clear A

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 298

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 7

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2010, 08:01
A IMO

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 56

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 10

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2010, 02:44
goalsnr wrote:
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?


Hi Goalsnr,

I think you can rule B out for strong wording:

Premise:
"conservation objectives would in general be better served... "

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


Hope it helps!

Cheers,
André

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 10

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2010, 18:37
spriya wrote:
goalsnr wrote:
OA is A.
Iam still not convinced with the OA.Any better explanations?


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.


Good explanation. Thanks!

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 151

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 15

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2010, 14:59
IMO A

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 15

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 170

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 9

Re: CR - enterprises [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2010, 02:20
A eazy

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 9

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 7

Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: Schulich (A)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.13
Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2011, 12:08
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 7

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 439

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 46

Location: United States (MA)
Re: Conservation Objective [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2011, 12:59
I think its B.

"argues most strongly against the suggestion of letting private groups handle the National parks."

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. - Out of scope

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. - out of scope

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

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

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 46

Re: Conservation Objective   [#permalink] 26 Jul 2011, 12:59

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 48 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.