It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 17:24

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1340

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

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

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2008, 10:33
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

63% (01:19) correct 37% (01:36) wrong based on 1132 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 [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2011
Posts: 316

Kudos [?]: 79 [2], given: 3

Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 620 Q39 V35
GMAT 2: 620 Q43 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2011, 13:53
2
KUDOS
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/

Kudos [?]: 79 [2], given: 3

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1374

Kudos [?]: 406 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2008, 22:59
1
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 [?]: 406 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 214

Kudos [?]: 41 [1], given: 38

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2011, 12:19
1
KUDOS
Couldn't comprehend. Tough one!
_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MGMAT 6 650 (51,31) on 31/8/11
MGMAT 1 670 (48,33) on 04/9/11
MGMAT 2 670 (47,34) on 07/9/11
MGMAT 3 680 (47,35) on 18/9/11
GMAT Prep1 680 ( 50, 31) on 10/11/11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CR notes
http://gmatclub.com/forum/massive-collection-of-verbal-questions-sc-rc-and-cr-106195.html#p832142
http://gmatclub.com/forum/1001-ds-questions-file-106193.html#p832133
http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-critical-reasoning-collection-106783.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html?hilit=chineseburned

Kudos [?]: 41 [1], given: 38

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 2

Location: nj

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 342 [0], given: 2

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 962

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1340

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

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.

I chose B too. But thats not the OA.

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1005 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 1005 [0], given: 1

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1340

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1340

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1374

Kudos [?]: 406 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 406 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Apr 2010
Posts: 164

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 16 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 44

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

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2010, 22:09
Its a clear A

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 302

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

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2010, 08:01
A IMO

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

Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 56

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

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... "

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

Hope it helps!

Cheers,
André

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 10

Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 42

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 152

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2010, 14:59
IMO A

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2010, 02:20
A eazy

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

Re: CR - enterprises   [#permalink] 01 Sep 2010, 02:20

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 48 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by