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.
It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!
Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club
Registration gives you:
Tests
Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.
Applicant Stats
View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more
Books/Downloads
Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Hii karishma. Restating the argument: "it would be premature to conclude that the rapid developemtn of new fields will result in higher oil exports". Two things are possible 1) there is an alternate way,apart from new fields, through which export can be increased. 2) there is no increase in exports at all. Both the above options create a doubt that rapid development of new fields lead to higher exports.
Now D creates an alternate source(point 1) without making an assumption, whereas again saying B makes another assumption. Ask yourself, do the cars only run on fuels?
Now someone please let me know how my solution is incorrect.
You need to analyze the argument properly.
Argument: Utrania was a major exporter of oil. Some yrs back, exports dropped because investments in new fields were inhibited and old fields became depleted. Now, new fields will be developed. Still, rapid development of new fields may not result in higher exports because ....
All you are interested in is why development of new fields may not lead to increase in exports. The point is not what may lead to increase in exports. The point is why exports may not increase even though new fields will be developed. Where will the oil from the new fields go? Ofcourse, domestic consumption.
Also, there is no assumption here. Most automobiles run on fuel today. If there is a dramatic increase in the number of automobiles, a big chunk is bound to run on fuel.
It's a simple question. Treat it as such.
_________________
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Jan 2013, 11:20
I agree with Marcab, there is a slight assumption here that automobiles run on fuel. But B is the best ans and not D because we cannot conclude that new technology to extract oil from depleted resources will increase the export.
_________________
I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously Wont give up till i hit a 700+
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Jan 2013, 14:08
Karishma is right, the key word here is EXPORT. Great internal consumption of oil products makes export forecast uncertain. B is clear
_________________
Hii karishma. Restating the argument: "it would be premature to conclude that the rapid developemtn of new fields will result in higher oil exports". Two things are possible 1) there is an alternate way,apart from new fields, through which export can be increased. 2) there is no increase in exports at all. Both the above options create a doubt that rapid development of new fields lead to higher exports.
Now D creates an alternate source(point 1) without making an assumption, whereas again saying B makes another assumption. Ask yourself, do the cars only run on fuels?
Now someone please let me know how my solution is incorrect.
Hi Marcab,
You have raised an interesting point here. Initially, I could not understand why you chose option D but after reading this post, I understand.
Let's understand the last line:
" it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because"
Now, here you say that one thing possible is that " there is an alternate way,apart from new fields, through which export can be increased".
Well, even if there are alternate ways to increase exports, how does it make a conclusion premature that new fields will lead to increased exports.
An Analogy
Sometime analogies can be useful. Let's consider an analogy here:
It would be premature to say that eating one more apple a day will increase my height because I can increase height by drinking milk.
Is this argument correct? No. Why?
Because the guy is not saying that there is no other way to increase your height; He is just saying that eating an extra apple will increase my height.
Similarly, in this case, even if we say that there could be other sources through which higher exports could be achieved, we are not weakening the given argument.
Only way vs one of the ways
However, if the argument had said that
" it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields is the only way to achieve higher oil exports, because"
then we could have said that there are other avenues to increase exports, than only through new fields.
Therefore, option D is not correct.
Weakeners make assumptions
Now, regarding your other query that option B makes some assumptions. Again, a good point.
The idea is that almost all weakeners make some assumptions. There are not many weakeners, if you look at OG, which would conclusively disprove the conclusion just by their own. And in this question, we are looking for a weakener only.
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jan 2013, 01:15
Weakeners make assumptions
Now, regarding your other query that option B makes some assumptions. Again, a good point.
The idea is that almost all weakeners make some assumptions. There are not many weakeners, if you look at OG, which would conclusively disprove the conclusion just by their own. And in this question, we are looking for a weakener only.
I do not understand the above idea. Pls cite the og questions in which weakeners disprove the conclusion and in which weakener only weaken the conclusion. pls, cite only one question for each case. thank you very much. I understand that if information shatters an assumption, it disproves the conclusion. if information increases doubt in an assumption, it increase doubt in the conclusion. The first is the destroyer, the second the weakner. both destroyer and weakner are correct answer for weakening question.
is my thinking correct?
_________________
visit my facebook to help me. on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jan 2013, 01:23
second point, so I post second time
above argument is proposal passage. if we do X, Y happen. assumption for this passage is that there is no bad agent. weakner is that there is some bad agent which prevent the happening of Y.
be armed with above thinking before going to answer choices for analysis.
now, among answer choices, B match our prethinking.
choose B.
pls, comment my above process. is it right? Thank you .
_________________
visit my facebook to help me. on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang
Now, regarding your other query that option B makes some assumptions. Again, a good point.
The idea is that almost all weakeners make some assumptions. There are not many weakeners, if you look at OG, which would conclusively disprove the conclusion just by their own. And in this question, we are looking for a weakener only.
I do not understand the above idea. Pls cite the og questions in which weakeners disprove the conclusion and in which weakener only weaken the conclusion. pls, cite only one question for each case. thank you very much. I understand that if information shatters an assumption, it disproves the conclusion. if information increases doubt in an assumption, it increase doubt in the conclusion. The first is the destroyer, the second the weakner. both destroyer and weakner are correct answer for weakening question.
is my thinking correct?
Hi Thang.
Please find below an OG question where weakener doesn't disprove the conclusion. Or, in other words, it would require us to make assumptions to disprove the conclusion.
(Posted on according-to-the-tristate-transportation-authority-making-113718.html) According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically. The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls on the two high-way bridges along the route the rail line serves. Although the proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority’s plan for securing the necessary funds should be rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit.
1.. Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority’s plan to finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls? (A) Before the authority increases tolls on any of the area bridges, it is required by law to hold public hearings at which objections to the proposed increase can be raised. (B) Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines. (C) Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect, many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase. (D) When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved. (E) The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.
The asnwer is Option D. One very obvious assumption required in this question is that past trends will be followed in the future too.
Unlike the wholesale price of raw wool, the wholesale price of raw cotton has fallen considerably in the last Year. Thus, although the retail price of cotton clothing at retail cloting stores has not yet fallen, it will inevitably fall. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. The cost of processing raw cotton for cloth has increased during the last Year. B. The wholesale price is typically higher than that of the same volume of raw cotton. C. The operating costs of the average retail cloting store have remained constant during the last year. D. Changes in retail prices always lag behind changes in wholesale prices. E. The cost of harvesting raw cotton has increased in the last year.
The answer is Option A.
Since, as per the weakener, the cost of processing raw cotton for cloth has increased during the last Year, we cannot say that "retail price of cotton will inevitably fall". It might or it might not fall (depends how much processing costs has increased).
As far as your reasoning goes, it is precisely right. Whether a statement increased doubt or shatters the conclusion, in both the cases, it is a weakener.
pls continue this discussion which is about the behavior of weakener, and, so which is important.
in the first og question, oa D requires an assumption to increase the doubt on the conclusion
in the second og question, oa A dose not requires any assumption to increase the doubt on the conclusion
that is the difference I get from you. Thank you very much.
another question
can you give me an og question, in which the weakener truely shatter the conclusion ? pls,
in the above second og question, oa A dose not shatter. oa A only cast doubt on the conlusion.
Thank you
Hi Thang,
In the second case, the weakener does shatter the conclusion. The conclusion was "retail price of cotton will inevitably fall". Now, if the weakener is inserted, we cannot be sure if the price will fall.
Now, we cannot say that retail price will inevitably fall. The conclusion is not only weakened, it doesn't hold true. It is not inevitable anymore.
I do not understand the above idea. Pls cite the og questions in which weakeners disprove the conclusion and in which weakener only weaken the conclusion. pls, cite only one question for each case. thank you very much. I understand that if information shatters an assumption, it disproves the conclusion. if information increases doubt in an assumption, it increase doubt in the conclusion. The first is the destroyer, the second the weakner. both destroyer and weakner are correct answer for weakening question.
is my thinking correct?
In CR questions we deal with real world scenarios. New information will either strengthen or weaken or do nothing to the conclusion. It is very very difficult for the new info to establish something without a doubt because then the new info will need to consider all possible cases. There will always be some assumptions. The new info will change the degree of confidence in our conclusion. It will not establish or refute our conclusion without any doubt.
Let me explain using an example:
Your argument: Mr X was found on the crime scene (I have been watching too much Fox Crime lately!) with a gun in his hand, blood on his clothes and victim on the floor. Mr X must be the killer (your conclusion).
I want to weaken your argument: Mr X was trying to coerce the gun out of the killer's hand. He is not the killer. (I have successfully cast doubt on your conclusion but there are assumptions here. You can still get back. )
Your argument: But we can say without a doubt that there was no other person in that room during that time. (perhaps there is a single exit/entry point and it was guarded) Now you have strengthened your case and weakened mine but still there are assumptions.
My argument: The victim was trying to kill himself and Mr X was trying to stop him. The victim succeeded in committing suicide. Mr X is innocent. Now I have weakened your case and strengthened mine.
We can keep at it for a long time and every new piece of info can strengthen/weaken the argument. Every new piece of info does come with assumptions. That is why, criminals are punished when their crime is established without REASONABLE doubt.
Basically, it will be very very difficult to disprove a conclusion. You can generally just weaken it.
_________________
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Apr 2013, 16:07
Blue Book CR65
Strengthen Conclusion: The development of new oil fields WILL NOT result in higher oil exports. Premise: Though economic situation improving and regulations are less strict.
Had C: Foreign source gives oil to Utrania, so it does not make sense for Utrania to export oil resulting in higher oil exports. Not C: Foreigners investment in Utrania's new oil fields is good for its development and helps Utrania's oil exports resulting in higher oil exports. It's B: Utrania's improved economic situation caused its people to use more of its oil and it is very likely that there will be LESS oil exports. Not A: The stable price of oil will still result in higher oil exports.
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Sep 2014, 22:25
eazyb81 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition
Practice Question Question No.: 65 Page: 142 Difficulty:
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oild fields. In consequence, Utrania oil exports dropped steadily as old fields became depleted. Utrania's currently improving economic condition, together with less restrictive regulations, will undoubtedly result in the rapid development of new fields. However, it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because:
A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years.
B. the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranian's who own automobiles.
C. most of the investment in the oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources.
D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted.
E. many of the new oil fields in Utrania are likely to be as productive as those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
The more i re-look at Gmatprep problems the more i become a fan of them.. Again, Do this when you come across a complete the passage question
Attachment:
Untitled.png [ 8.55 KiB | Viewed 1064 times ]
Clearly, we need to reason as to why in spite of rapid development of of new fields, the exports many not be higher....We need to strengthen this argument... Gap in the argument: Earlier exporter but Stagnant economy for decades and restrictive regulations inhibited investments in new oil fields.Oil exports steadily decreased because oil fields became depleted.. of Now things have changed with improving economy and less restrictive investment policies..but still we may not have higher exports from new oil fields B points to reason of increased domestic consumption on account of vehicles..oil will come from new fields.. D. new technology is available to recover oil but from fields regarded depleted...we need to have higher exports and we have only technology but yields from these fields may not be high enough leading to low exports
_________________
“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”
Which of the following most logically completes the argument? Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields. In consequence, Utranian oil exports dropped steadily as old fields became depleted. Utrania's currently improving economic situation, together with less-restrictive regulations, will undoubtedly result in the rapid development of new fields. However, it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because __________.
A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years
B. the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles
C. most of the investment in new oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources
D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted
E. many of the new oil fields in Utrania are likely to be as productive as those that were developed during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter
B. Fact 1: There will be a rapid development of NEW OIL FIELDS. Fact 2: There will not be higher oil EXPORTS.
The correct answer must explain why MORE OIL will not lead to more oil EXPORTS.
Answer choice B: The improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles. Thus, the oil extracted from the NEW OIL FIELDS will be used by drivers in Utrania, explaining why there will NOT be an increase in oil EXPORTS.
The correct answer is B.
Answer choice D: New technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted. This answer choice does not explain why oil recovered from the old fields and extracted from the new fields will not be exported. Eliminated D.
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Jan 2015, 23:28
Here we go---
According to me, option B is correct
Reasoning:
Utrania - Formerly a major petroleum exporter -> Export dropped because of X-Y reasons -> Improvement in economic situation will result in rapid development of new fields -> But the export of oil will not increase ----- why??? because of "increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles" (this means consumption of oil in Utrania increases countering the increase in the oil thus generated)
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Mar 2015, 07:52
souvik101990 wrote:
Which of the following most logically completes the argument? Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields. In consequence, Utranian oil exports dropped steadily as old fields became depleted. Utrania's currently improving economic situation, together with less-restrictive regulations, will undoubtedly result in the rapid development of new fields. However, it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because __________.
A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years
B. the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles
C. most of the investment in new oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources
D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted
E. many of the new oil fields in Utrania are likely to be as productive as those that were developed during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter
we have new oil wells but author thinks that exports level will not come to same level as they were in good times . why author thinks this ?
A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years ---ok, prices would remain stable but why would not the export not go to normal levels ? does not explain sufficiently. one reason may be that there are more oil producers now in market but and there is more competition for price but still why would Utrania would not export ?
B. the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles --AAhaa...so there is a dramatic increase in number of automobiles and so Utrania need the new production (as the old well are already depleted ) .
C. most of the investment in new oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources --more foriegn funding , more chnaces that export will go up .
D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted so there will be more oil , OLD + NEW why would Utrania not export ?
E. many of the new oil fields in Utrania are likely to be as productive as those that were developed during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter ---ohh..same explanation as above..
ANSWER : B
_________________
Thanks, Lucky
_______________________________________________________ Kindly press the to appreciate my post !!
We’ve given one of our favorite features a boost! You can now manage your profile photo, or avatar , right on WordPress.com. This avatar, powered by a service...
Sometimes it’s the extra touches that make all the difference; on your website, that’s the photos and video that give your content life. You asked for streamlined access...
A lot has been written recently about the big five technology giants (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook) that dominate the technology sector. There are fears about the...
Post today is short and sweet for my MBA batchmates! We survived Foundations term, and tomorrow's the start of our Term 1! I'm sharing my pre-MBA notes...
to appreciate my post !! 
