Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 27 May 2017, 00:15

### 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

# United Energy recently invested in a series of large

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

### Hide Tags

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3175
Followers: 857

Kudos [?]: 7316 [4] , given: 1065

United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 13:43
4
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:51) correct 39% (02:03) wrong based on 382 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns. However, United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals. Recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity have some experts questioning the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

The two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(B) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
(C) The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion.
(D) The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion.
(E) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2012
Posts: 4
GMAT Date: 11-10-2012
Followers: 0

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

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 16:58
plese provide OA...with explanation
Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3175
Followers: 857

Kudos [?]: 7316 [0], given: 1065

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 17:03
sudhirroninsingh wrote:
plese provide OA...with explanation

try to solve
_________________
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2012
Posts: 115
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [1] , given: 57

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 21:47
1
KUDOS
Is the answer C?

greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. Because any drilling would disrupt the native habitat of certain marine species in the area, some environmentalists assert that, by foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.

I think the second boldface is what the environmentalists concluded from the situation. The first boldface supports this because it says United Energy could have earned more profits.

(A) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question. -> Not true.
(B) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second supports that conclusion. -> The first is not the conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first supports the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second states that conclusion. -> Yes
(D) The first states the environmentalists’ conclusion; the second provides a consideration in support of that conclusion. -> This is reverse of C.
(E) The first supports the conclusion of the argument; the second also supports the conclusion of the argument. -> Not true. The argument ends with a question mark over the motivation behind not pursuing the drilling of oil wells.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1132
Location: United States
Followers: 278

Kudos [?]: 3112 [2] , given: 123

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 00:04
2
KUDOS
(1) Fact: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area. Even though, greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells
(2) Environmentalist's conclusion: United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
(3) Author's conclusion: United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals

Author's conclusion is KEY. It is the main conclusion of the argument. It states that UE acts for profit not for environment as Environmentalists thought.
Because UE used to drill oil wells in the past because greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. That clearly supports the main conclusion.
The second bold part, however, maintains that UE acts for environment, not for profit. That calls the main conclusion into question.

I will go for A.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 44
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 108 [5] , given: 3

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 04:56
5
KUDOS
Analysis of passage
1. United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment.
2. United Energy has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells.
3. Environmentalist’s conclusion: By foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
4. Author’s conclusion: United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals as oil wells are not profitable in long term in the area.
Pre thinking:

Author’s conclusion (which is also conclusion of the argument) : United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.
Author’s support to his conclusion: To support his conclusion author is citing recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity which some experts believe will affect the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.

Environmentalist conclusion: United Energy places environmental impact over financial returns
Environmentalist support to his conclusion: Environmentalist is supporting his conclusion by citing the fact that united energy has opted for windmills instead of drilling oil wells although greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells.

So the first bold is definitely not conclusion of the argument and nor is it supporting the conclusion of the argument. It is actually supporting the environmentalist conclusion as stated in pre thinking above. The second bold face is the environmentalist conclusion.

Hence C is the answer

Note that it is important to segregate between Author's and Environmentalist conclusion in this question and once that is done it becomes easier to relate between conclusion and supporting reasons.
Hope this Helps.
_________________

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3175
Followers: 857

Kudos [?]: 7316 [0], given: 1065

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 10:32
OE

Quote:
The argument concludes that United Energy may be acting in a manner
consistent with reaching its financial goals. However, this conclusion must be
distinguished from the assertion of the environmentalists described in the
question - that the actions taken by United Energy indicate that the company is
putting environmental concerns ahead of financial returns. The answer choices
may consider either the author's conclusion (which is considered the overall
conclusion) or the conclusion asserted by the environmentalists (which is
considered the opposing opinion).

This is an Analyze the Argument Structure question. The best approach is to
consider each boldface in turn.

(A) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion that United
Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals; the second
does not call the conclusion into question as much as state its opposite.
(B) The first boldface does not state the conclusion of the argument; the second
boldface does not support the conclusion of the main argument, which is that
United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.
(C) CORRECT. The first boldface supports the environmentalists’ conclusion that
United Energy is acting in a manner that places environmental impact ahead of
financial returns. The second boldface states this conclusion.
(D) The first boldface is a relationship that does support the environmentalists'
conclusion; however, the second states this conclusion, and does not undermine
it.
(E) The first boldface does not support the author's conclusion, which is that
United Energy may be acting in its financial interest; the second boldface also
does not support this conclusion.

_________________
Director
Status: Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 612
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 750 Q51 V41
GMAT 3: 790 Q51 V49
GPA: 3.3
Followers: 78

Kudos [?]: 497 [0], given: 298

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmil [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2013, 04:28
pqhai wrote:
(1) Fact: United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills. The company has not drilled oil wells in the same area. Even though, greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells
(2) Environmentalist's conclusion: United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
(3) Author's conclusion: United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals

Author's conclusion is KEY. It is the main conclusion of the argument. It states that UE acts for profit not for environment as Environmentalists thought.
Because UE used to drill oil wells in the past because greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells. That clearly supports the main conclusion.
The second bold part, however, maintains that UE acts for environment, not for profit. That calls the main conclusion into question.

I will go for A.

I could easily eliminate A B and E, stuck between C and E.
_________________

Like my post Send me a Kudos It is a Good manner.
My Debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-score-750-and-750-i-moved-from-710-to-189016.html

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10363
Followers: 999

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2015, 19:20
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
Posts: 55
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 2

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2016, 03:13
The first is a fact (finding, evidence) ; A - C – E
The second is claim (conclusion) – C
Đáp án C.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 460
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 25

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 823

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2017, 23:57
The first part: Eventhough--- is a counter premise indicator

(at this point: B is out)

The second: is basically what the Environmentalists conclude...

(at this point D is out)
(A is out... no question is being asked in the second bold face)

Left with: C, E

E--> Is incorrect.. as both cant support a conclusion..can you find the conclusion they support???

C: 2nd is the environmentalists conclusion..and first is reinforcing their conclusion..by stating that the company placed Envi over ...

hence C
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Re: United Energy recently invested in a series of large   [#permalink] 18 Apr 2017, 23:57
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 A company that invests the necessary infrastructure in a large 2 06 Apr 2016, 18:59
11 CR Strengthen Series 1) Several Energy Alternative Programs 6 14 Sep 2015, 23:42
1 Boldface Revision: United Energy recently invested in a series 3 29 Mar 2015, 20:04
10 United Energy recently invested in a series of large 11 26 Jul 2016, 16:23
7 A recent series of newspaper articles revealed that 3 12 Oct 2016, 18:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# United Energy recently invested in a series of large

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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.