Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
12 Aug 2019, 22:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
12% (02:18) correct
88%
(02:32)
wrong
based on 1332
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Though the press release and other official statements of oil companies take great pains to emphasize that the scientific community is not unanimous in the belief that global warming can be tied to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, oil companies clearly do not believe this to be the case. If there were actually credible, respected scientists who rejected human-caused climate change, these companies would surely spend more money to support the research doe by these dissenting voices, for they have a vested interest in making sure debate on the issue continues indefinitely.
Which of the following best explains the apparent discrepancy described above?
(A) Oil companies have only recently begun investing in scientific research that addresses climate change.
(B) Unless a researcher can credibly claim independence from those whom his research might benefit, they will not be as successful as those who can.
(C) Oil companies typically earmark money spent on research for technologies that would directly benefit their profits.
(D) Oil companies spend substantial amounts circulating their press releases and publicizing their other official statements.
(E) If a company spends money to support on side of a contentious issue, such support will be taken as a sign that the issue is already decided.
Which of the following best explains the apparent discrepancy described above?
(A) Oil companies have only recently begun investing in scientific research that addresses climate change.
(B) Unless a researcher can credibly claim independence from those whom his research might benefit, they will not be as successful as those who can.
(C) Oil companies typically earmark money spent on research for technologies that would directly benefit their profits.
(D) Oil companies spend substantial amounts circulating their press releases and publicizing their other official statements.
(E) If a company spends money to support on side of a contentious issue, such support will be taken as a sign that the issue is already decided.
This Question is Locked Due to Poor Quality
Hi there,
The question you've reached has been archived due to not meeting our community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Looking for better-quality questions? Check out the 'Similar Questions' block below
for a list of similar but high-quality questions.
Want to join other relevant Problem Solving discussions? Visit our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
for the most recent and top-quality discussions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
14 Aug 2019, 06:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
David nguyen
Discrepancy:
Though oil companies emphasise that scientists are not sure whether fossil fuels are leading to global warming, oil companies don't invest in research of scientists who believe that fossil fuels are not the culprit.
This is a bit unexpected. Proving that fossil fuels are not responsible is in their favour so they should financially support it.
(A) Oil companies have only recently begun investing in scientific research that addresses climate change.
Doesn't make much sense.
(B) Unless a researcher can credibly claim independence from those whom his research might benefit, they will not be as successful as those who can.
First half makes sense but the second half doesn't. They will not be as successful as others does not mean that they will not be successful (considered credible).
(C) Oil companies typically earmark money spent on research for technologies that would directly benefit their profits.
Doesn't mean they cannot spend on research of these scientists.
(D) Oil companies spend substantial amounts circulating their press releases and publicizing their other official statements.
Doesn't mean they cannot spend on research of these scientists.
(E) If a company spends money to support on side of a contentious issue, such support will be taken as a sign that the issue is already decided.
This might have some merit though it is a very ambiguous way of putting things. It helps if the option implies that if a company spends money to support one side of a contentious issue, it is a sign that the other side of the issue stands.
To give a clearer picture, if the oil companies spend money to support that fossil fuels do not cause global warming, it will be taken as a sign that fossil fuels do cause global warming and hence the oil companies are spending money to prove otherwise. In that case, it makes sense that the oil companies are not spending money on the research of the said scientists to not send the opposing message.
Again, as I said, rather ambiguous way of putting things.
I wouldn't spend too much time on the question. Move on.
General Discussion
06 Dec 2020, 04:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
AndrewN, I did get this question right but it was a fluke, I would love to hear your take on this and understand as to why is A the correct answer to this question.
