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.
Jun 2106:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Not only the typical inference questions but also all other CR questions on the GMAT require the ability to deduce from the given information. Come master how to draw inferences accurately and efficiently with Verbal Expert-Sunita Singhvi. Limited Seats!
Jun 2111:00 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
Jun 2211:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
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.
Jun 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jun 3008:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates!
20 Jul 2022, 07:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun,
I was going through the explanation and found that I missed something.
I rejected B because proportion of population owning automobile will increase doesn't solidify the idea that new oil field would not overshoot the consumption of oil domestically. It may or may not.
I chose E - many new oil field are likely to be 'as productive as' those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
If that is true the amount of oil produced will be equal to the oil produced when the country was the highest exporter.
This will lead to same quantity of oil production and thus not higher oil exports.
Could you please help me understand?
Thanks,
Ankush
Thanks
I was going through the explanation and found that I missed something.
I rejected B because proportion of population owning automobile will increase doesn't solidify the idea that new oil field would not overshoot the consumption of oil domestically. It may or may not.
I chose E - many new oil field are likely to be 'as productive as' those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
If that is true the amount of oil produced will be equal to the oil produced when the country was the highest exporter.
This will lead to same quantity of oil production and thus not higher oil exports.
Could you please help me understand?
Thanks,
Ankush
Thanks
GMATNinja
The author would like to reach the following conclusion: "it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports." Let's consider what we have so far...
So we are looking for something that would explain why EXPORTS might not increase even if new fields (new sources of oil) are rapidly developed. Notice that the author is not saying that the exports will DEFINITELY not increase. Rather, the author is merely suggesting that we don't know yet. In other words, it would be "premature" to conclude that the rapid development will result in higher oil exports.
(And if you prefer your explanations in video form, check out this YouTube CR webinar.)
Choice (B) is the best answer.
- Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter. The word "formerly" tells us that Utrania is no longer a major petroleum exporter.
- Why is Utrania no longer a major petroleum exporter? It seems as though economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields in recent decades.
- As a result, oil exports from Utrania dropped steadily as the old fields became depleted. In other words, they were using up the OLD supplies. Since investment in NEW fields was restricted, the overall supply steadily decreased. This led to a decrease in exports.
- Now things are changing again. Economic conditions are improving in Utrania, and the regulations are now less restrictive. As a result, new fields will be developed rapidly, helping to replenish the decreasing supply.
- But the author is reluctant to conclude that this rapid development will lead to higher oil exports.
So we are looking for something that would explain why EXPORTS might not increase even if new fields (new sources of oil) are rapidly developed. Notice that the author is not saying that the exports will DEFINITELY not increase. Rather, the author is merely suggesting that we don't know yet. In other words, it would be "premature" to conclude that the rapid development will result in higher oil exports.
(And if you prefer your explanations in video form, check out this YouTube CR webinar.)
Quote:
A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years.
The author expects the supply of oil to increase but does NOT expect exports to increase... why not? Perhaps if the price of oil were expected to plummet, it would not make economic sense to export the oil. But if the price of oil is expected to remain stable, we would expect an increase in supply to cause an increase in exports. Choice (A) does not explain this apparent discrepancy, so it can be eliminated.Quote:
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.
We know that the new fields will help replenish the supply of oil, so why won't Utrania export that oil? Well, perhaps the demand for oil IN Utrania will increase. If the improvement in economic conditions causes a dramatic increase in automobile ownership, then we can expect an increase in domestic demand for oil to fuel those automobiles. So even though Utrania will be PRODUCING more oil, a larger chunk of that production will have to stay in Utrania to meet the increased domestic demand. This explains how supply could increase without an increase in exports, so hang on to choice (B).Quote:
C. most of the investment in the oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources.
It doesn't matter where the investment comes from. If we are rapidly developing new oil fields, we should increase the supply of oil. If we increase the supply of oil, why won't exports also increase? Choice (C) does not address this apparent discrepancy and can be eliminated.Quote:
D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted.
We already know that the new fields will increase the supply of oil. Choice (D) gives us even MORE reason to expect that oil supplies will increase. Not only do we have the oil from the new fields, but we'll also be able to squeeze some more oil out of the "depleted" fields. This further suggests that exports will increase and does not explain the author's conclusion. Eliminate (D). Quote:
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.
Choice (E) might be tempting if it said that the new fields are NOT likely to be as productive as those developed when Utrania was a major exporter. If that were the case, we would have to doubt whether the rapid development would lead to a substantial increase in the supply of oil. However, as written, choice (E) simply gives us more reason to think that the new fields SHOULD lead to an increase in oil exports. This does not match the author's conclusion, so (E) can be eliminated.Choice (B) is the best answer.
21 Jul 2022, 00:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
nkshmalik1
Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun,
I was going through the explanation and found that I missed something.
I rejected B because proportion of population owning automobile will increase doesn't solidify the idea that new oil field would not overshoot the consumption of oil domestically. It may or may not.
I chose E - many new oil field are likely to be 'as productive as' those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
If that is true the amount of oil produced will be equal to the oil produced when the country was the highest exporter.
This will lead to same quantity of oil production and thus not higher oil exports.
Could you please help me understand?
Thanks,
Ankush
Hi nkshmalik1,I was going through the explanation and found that I missed something.
I rejected B because proportion of population owning automobile will increase doesn't solidify the idea that new oil field would not overshoot the consumption of oil domestically. It may or may not.
I chose E - many new oil field are likely to be 'as productive as' those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
If that is true the amount of oil produced will be equal to the oil produced when the country was the highest exporter.
This will lead to same quantity of oil production and thus not higher oil exports.
Could you please help me understand?
Thanks,
Ankush
You may be looking at the earliest mention of exports, whereas "higher" here is relative to the current (low) exports. Look at it this way: the country was a major exporter, but then exports dropped steadily. Now, even with {improving economy and less restrictive regulations}, it'd be premature to conclude that exports will go up. Up from the current levels, not the original levels.
24 Jul 2022, 20:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
nkshmalik1
Hi GMATNinja AjiteshArun,
I was going through the explanation and found that I missed something.
I rejected B because proportion of population owning automobile will increase doesn't solidify the idea that new oil field would not overshoot the consumption of oil domestically. It may or may not.
I chose E - many new oil field are likely to be 'as productive as' those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
If that is true the amount of oil produced will be equal to the oil produced when the country was the highest exporter.
This will lead to same quantity of oil production and thus not higher oil exports.
Could you please help me understand?
Thanks,
Ankush
Thanks
AjiteshArun is spot-on about (E)!I was going through the explanation and found that I missed something.
I rejected B because proportion of population owning automobile will increase doesn't solidify the idea that new oil field would not overshoot the consumption of oil domestically. It may or may not.
I chose E - many new oil field are likely to be 'as productive as' those that were developing during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter.
If that is true the amount of oil produced will be equal to the oil produced when the country was the highest exporter.
This will lead to same quantity of oil production and thus not higher oil exports.
Could you please help me understand?
Thanks,
Ankush
Thanks
One more thought on (B): sure, the proportion of the population with cars doesn't 100% PROVE that oil exports will be higher. That's totally ok -- we don't need an answer choice that proves that the conclusion is correct. Instead, we just need to choose the answer choice that "most logically completes the argument." (B) gives us a potential piece of support for the conclusion, so it does indeed logically complete the argument.
None of the other options provide any support, so (B) is the best answer.
I hope that helps!
