The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we

Question

The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change. Since there is only so much metal ore available, ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place. 
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) There are renewable resource replacements for all of the nonrenewable resources currently being consumed. 
(B) We cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources. 
(C) A renewable resource cannot be exhausted by human consumption. 
(D) Consumption of nonrenewable resources will not continue to increase in the future. 
(E) Ultimately we cannot do without nonrenewable resources.

Source: PowerScore CR Bible

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The structure of the argument is as follows: Premise: There is only so much metal ore available. Sub-conclusion/Premise: Ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place. Conclusion: The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change. At first glance the argument does not seem to have any holes. This would suggest a Defender answer is coming, and indeed that is the case.

Answer choice (A): The author does not need to assume this statement because the stimulus specifically indicates that “we must either do without or turn to renewable resources.” Since doing without is an option, the author is not assuming there are renewable replacements for all nonrenewable resources currently being consumed.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. This answer defends the conclusion that the consumption pattern must change by indicating that it would not be possible to simply replace one nonrenewable resource with another nonrenewable resource. If this answer did not make sense at first glance, you should have noted the negative language and then negated the answer. Using the Assumption Negation Technique, the following would clearly attack the conclusion: “We can indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources.” If the nonrenewable resources can be indefinitely replaced, why do we need to change our consumption habits?

Answer choice (C): The author’s argument concerns changing current consumption habits. Although the author does suggest turning to renewable resources, this alone would represent a change. The author does not make a long-term assumption that renewable resources can never be depleted. When faced with the negation of the answer choice, the author would likely reply: “If that eventuality does occur, then perhaps we will have to do without. In the meantime, we still need to change our consumption habits.” As you can see, the negation has not undermined the author’s position, and so this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The author does not make statements or assumptions about actual consumption patterns in the near future, only statements regarding what must eventually occur.

Answer choice (E): This answer, when rephrased to eliminate the double negative, reads as “Ultimately we must have nonrenewable resources.” Because this answer hurts the argument, the answer is incorrect.

LighthousePrep · Answer

The conclusion is: ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place

A) The last sentence of the passage contradicts this by saying that there is a possibility that we won't have/use renewable resources: "we must either do without or turn to renewable resources..."
B) "Since there is only so much metal ore available" that line identifies only one type of renewable resource. There could be others that we could use. But the passage's claim that "we MUST either do without or turn to renewable resources..." assumes that eventually we won't have the option to substitute one renewable resource with another.
C) No such claim is made in the passage. Again, the last sentence acknowledges the possibility that we may not be able to turn to renewable resources.
D) Increase or decreased consumption aren't required for the conclusion since the passage doesn't define the sustainable rate of consumption.
E) The conclusion is that we must turn to doing without or using renewable resources. Therefore, the assumption that we cannot do without contradicts the conclusion, making this incorrect.

Correct answer: B

aditya8062 · Answer

B is the assumption :  We cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources.

NEGATION  of B:  We  CAN  indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources . ---------------->if we  CAN do so then we  MUST NOT  either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place.

arnabs · Answer

aditya8062,

B is the assumption: We cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources. 
or maybe when we negate B, we get this: We cannot  definitely  replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources.

NEGATION of B: We CAN indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources. ---------------->if we CAN do so then we MUST NOT either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place.
 if we cannot  definitely  replace exhausted NR resources with other NR resources, then ultimately we have to turn to renewable resources. in that case, negating does not weaken the conclusion. Am i negating correctly or what is it that I am missing??

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change. Since there is only so much metal ore available, ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place. 
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) There are renewable resource replacements for all of the nonrenewable resources currently being consumed. We're
not told that there are replacements for *all* nonrenewable resources. If so we wouldn't have to do without them.  
 (B)  We cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources.  Hence the argument that we will have to do without them or replace them with renewable resources.  
(C) A renewable resource cannot be exhausted by human consumption.  It says that nonrenewable sources have limits but not that renewable resources cannot be exhausted. In that case we'd have to do without them. 
(D) Consumption of nonrenewable resources will not continue to increase in the future.  The argument is that we will have to replace nonrenewable resources with renewable ones or do without them. Their rate of increase isn't relevant. 
(E) Ultimately we cannot do without nonrenewable resources. It says that we may be forced to do without them.

Icecream87 · Answer

When we negate B we get: We COULD indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources. Negating weakens the conclusion, so answer B

aaba · Answer

"there is only so much metal ore available" still means that there are nonrenewable sources existing but unavailable.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premise:
Non-renewable resources such as metal ore are limited in supply.

Conclusion: We need to change our pattern of consumption and must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take the place of non-renewable resources.

Both the first and the last sentences are conclusion. They are not different conclusions. It is a single conclusion for which the first sentence gives a generic statement and the last sentence makes it more specific. 
We need to change our pattern of consumption - generic
How? We need to do without or turn to renewable sources - specific

What is the assumption? Since non-renewable resources are limited, we need to replace them with renewable resources (or do without them). But we are assuming that we cannot replace one non renewable resource by another non renewable resource for a long long time. We are being asked to switch to renewable resources. Metal ore is limited but if it can be replaced by petrol, we may be good for a long long time. And then perhaps petrol will be replaced by natural gas and then perhaps we will use Uranium for centuries etc

(A) There are renewable resource replacements for all of the nonrenewable resources currently being consumed. 
Not necessary. The conclusion mentions that we may need to do without.

(B) We cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources. 
This is an assumption as discussed above.

(C) A renewable resource cannot be exhausted by human consumption. 
Not assumed in the argument. The argument only says that non-renewable resources are limited and we should switch to renewable. What will happen after some years with renewable resources, the argument doesn't say.

(D) Consumption of nonrenewable resources will not continue to increase in the future. 
Not assumed in the argument. The argument just says that we need to switch now. Whether it will increase, stay the same or decrease, no idea.

(E) Ultimately we cannot do without nonrenewable resources.
Not assumed in the argument. As per the argument, it seems we can do and will have to do without nonrenewable resources.

BlackHawk2478 · Answer

(B) We cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources.

It is impossible to indefinitely replace exhausted resources with nonrenewable resources! There are no more nonrenewable resources at sone point in the future!

Posted from my mobile device

SatvikVedala · Answer

Conclusion: " ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place. "

Option (A) is not an assumption rather it strengthens the conclusion'
Option (B) is a assumption & if it is true (i.e. We can indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources) then it destroys the conclusion
Option (C) is an assumption, yet destroys on part of conclusion (i.e. " turn to renewable resources to take its place ") but we may do without non-renewable source
Option (D) is an assumption, if negated provides support to conclusion
Option (E) is an assumption, if negated destroys first part of conclusion, leaving second part

unraveled · Answer

The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change. Since there is only so much metal ore available, ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place. 
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) There are renewable resource  replacements for all of the nonrenewable resources  currently being consumed. - WRONG. An extreme that is not required.
(B) We  cannot indefinitely replace  exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources. - CORRECT. If we can then change in pattern is questionable. The conclusion may not the case then. 
(C) A renewable resource  cannot be exhausted  by human consumption. - WRONG. 'Exhausted' is irrelevant at first. But if we negate the option that human can exhaust then too it does not impact the passage.
(D) Consumption of nonrenewable resources will not continue to  increase  in the future. - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(E) Ultimately we  cannot do without  nonrenewable resources. - WRONG. Goes to far with the claim.

Answer B.

8Harshitsharma · Answer

The premise on which is conclusion is based on is: since there is only so much of metal ore available, we must change our habits or learn to do without these NR resources.

And then negated choice B states that you can indefinitely replace every non-renewable resource with another non-renewable resource, BUT we are STILL going to deplete the metal ore. Isn't that the premise?? How can we ignore that and say ok let's deplete the metal ores and then we'll use chemical X and further then we'll use chemical Y and so on? We are then ignoring the premise that there is a limited quantity of the particular non-renewable resource.

I feel there's something weird about this argument, feels like the logic in the question and the answer as stated is incomplete or unclear.

Happy to discuss and learn about any shortcomings in my reasoning

saurabhmishrano1 · Answer

(A) There are renewable resource replacements for all of the nonrenewable resources currently being consumed.

- This assumption suggests that there are sufficient renewable alternatives available to replace all nonrenewable resources currently being consumed. If this assumption is true, it supports the argument's assertion that a transition to renewable resources is feasible. However, the argument does not explicitly state that renewable resources exist for every single nonrenewable resource. It only mentions turning to renewable resources as an alternative to nonrenewable resources like metal ore. Therefore, while this assumption may align with the argument's conclusion, it is not explicitly required.

(B) We cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable resources.

- This assumption underpins the argument's premise that relying solely on nonrenewable resources is unsustainable in the long term. If exhausted nonrenewable resources cannot be replaced with other nonrenewable resources indefinitely, it reinforces the argument's conclusion that transitioning to renewable resources is necessary to address resource scarcity and ensure long-term sustainability.

(C) A renewable resource cannot be exhausted by human consumption.

- This assumption asserts that renewable resources are inherently inexhaustible and cannot be depleted by human consumption. While renewable resources can be replenished over time, they are not necessarily limitless. Overexploitation or mismanagement of renewable resources can still lead to depletion or degradation. Therefore, this assumption is not required by the argument.

(D) Consumption of nonrenewable resources will not continue to increase in the future.

- This assumption posits that the consumption of nonrenewable resources will not escalate indefinitely over time. If this were true, it would support the argument's assertion that the current pattern of resource consumption must change to avoid depletion. However, the argument does not hinge on whether consumption rates will increase or decrease in the future. It focuses on the finite nature of nonrenewable resources and the need for a transition to renewable alternatives.

(E) Ultimately we cannot do without nonrenewable resources.

- This assumption suggests that human society cannot function without nonrenewable resources, implying that they are indispensable for various essential functions and activities. If this assumption is true, it weakens the argument's position that a transition away from nonrenewable resources is necessary. It implies that dependence on nonrenewable resources is unavoidable, contradicting the argument's call for change. Therefore, this assumption is not required by the argument.

napolean92728 · Answer

Argument Recap: 
 
 Human consumption relies on nonrenewable resources (e.g., metal ore). 
 These are finite, so this pattern  must eventually change . 
  Conclusion:  We must  either do without  or  turn to renewable resources .  
For the conclusion to hold, the argument must  assume  that we can't just keep finding other nonrenewables as replacements forever.

✅  Why (B) is correct:

The conclusion that we must switch to renewables or do without assumes that nonrenewable resources can't be endlessly replaced by  other  nonrenewables. 
 If we  could  keep finding other nonrenewable substitutes forever, then we wouldn’t necessarily need to change our current consumption pattern — this would weaken the argument. 
 So, this assumption is  necessary  for the argument to hold.

❌  Why the other options are wrong: 
(A) "There are renewable resource replacements for all of the nonrenewable resources currently being consumed."
 
 This is  too strong . The argument doesn't need this to be true — it allows that we  might do without  instead of replacing everything with renewables. 
 The conclusion just says we must  either  do without  or  turn to renewables — not that renewables must exist for every nonrenewable.  
(C) "A renewable resource cannot be exhausted by human consumption."
 
 Not required. The argument doesn't assume renewables are infinite or immune to overuse — just that they are an  alternative  to finite nonrenewables. 
 Whether they are also exhaustible doesn't affect the conclusion.  
(D) "Consumption of nonrenewable resources will not continue to increase in the future."
 
 This goes beyond the scope. The argument only requires that  nonrenewables are finite , not that our use of them will increase. Even if consumption stays the same, eventually we'll run out.  
(E) "Ultimately we cannot do without nonrenewable resources."
 
 This actually  contradicts  the argument, which suggests we  might have to do without  them. So this is the opposite of an assumption — it's inconsistent with the argument's own conclusion.

The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards