Last visit was: 18 May 2024, 21:39 It is currently 18 May 2024, 21:39
Close
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
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 505-555 Level,    Complete the Passage,                                  
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65352 [0]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Posts: 57
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [0]
Given Kudos: 71
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Karishma is just saying that you cannot sell something when there is no demand. your statement - I'm a gmatclub member destroys your first claim I'm not a gmatclub member.
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5150 [0]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Expert Reply
AsadAbu wrote:
Hi MartyMurray,
Sir, May I have your attention please. The makes me crazy!

VeritasKarishma wrote:
How about much cheaper oil available from a new source? That may reduce the demand for Utranian oil outside. The point is that the author is going to give a reason why exports may not jump up. It could have to do with lower supply or lower demand.

One prominent expert says that we can't weaken the following statement by just saying: I'm not a gmatclub member.
Here is the statement: I'm a gmatclub member.

In this CR, we need a reason why we WON'T EXPORT MORE. To weaken this one if we say SOMEONE WON'T IMPORT MORE, then won't it resemble the green part above?
Thanks__

The statement in green above is different from "Someone won't import more." The statement in green, "I'm not a gmatclub member." is a direct contradiction of the other statement, "I'm a gmatclub member." I am not sure what a direct contradiction of a conclusion does to an argument. Does it weaken it? or nullify it?

In any case, you won't see such a direct contradiction in a CR question, and an answer choice indicating that "Someone won't import more" would not be a direct contradiction of the conclusion that Utrania will export more. It weakens the support for that conclusion by indicating that, even though new oil fields may be developed, there won't be any buyers, and thus, there will not be any IMPETUS for exporting oil. So, it provides a reason to call the conclusion that exports will increase into question.

To correctly answer CR questions, you have to be more holistic in your thinking than you have been. In this case, what would happen in the real world if it were the case that nobody wants oil? Would a country be likely to export it? Of course not.

On another note, there is no reason really to even worry about this issue, as, clearly, one choice will provide a reason to call the conclusion into question, and we don't need to figure out in advance how that choice will do so. For one thing, what the correct answer says may be totally different from what we expected. In this case, it could say that:

There is a shortage of steel, so there is no way to build more oil tankers, and, currently all tankers are being used as much as possible.

All countries worldwide are seeking to reduce their use of oil.

The oil left in the ground in Utrania is low grade oil that no buyers want.

The worldwide supply of natural gas, a substitute for oil, is expected to triple next year, driving its price to half its current level.

We could go on and on.

So, your best bet is to understand the question and find a choice that gets the job done, rather than seek to determine what you will find before you find it.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 May 2015
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [0]
Given Kudos: 81
Send PM
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Please correct me if I am thinking more than needed:

Option B, as it sounds, would create a demand of fuel oil (which means refined oil). The argument is talking about the export of field oil,which means crude oil from fields. Doesn't it take a long leap to assume that increase in automobiles would create a domestic demand of fuel oil, which in turn would create a domestic demand of crude oil. Since it takes established refineries to convert crude oil into fuel oil, is it reasonable to assume that there are sufficient number of refineries available in the country to create a domestic demand for crude oil?
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1258
Own Kudos [?]: 203 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil 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 __________.

This particularly CP asks us to explain why something would be the case (i.e. “that it is premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields WILL RESULT in higher exports of oil BECAUSE…)

A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years. X
OK let’s grant this as true…the question is why will the exports not be higher then? If the price remains stable (as opposed to increasing) and the demand presumably still exists…then Utrania (as a major exporter) would surely export more oil with more available sources. Out.

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.
Correct. At first glance it might seem like this has nothing to do with exports, but in fact it has everything to do with it. One of the factors that would reduce exports is domestic need, i.e. the demand is coming from within. This in turn limits how much gets exported out.

C. most of the investment in the oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources. X
Goes in the opposite direction…we would think that exports would be higher because of this.

D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted. X
Similar reasoning as C…now we have even more oil on top of the oil from new fields.

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. X
Again opposite direction.
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1258
Own Kudos [?]: 203 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil 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 __________.

This particularly CP asks us to explain why something would be the case (i.e. “that it is premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields WILL RESULT in higher exports of oil BECAUSE…)

A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years. X
OK let’s grant this as true…the question is why will the exports not be higher then? If the price remains stable (as opposed to increasing) and the demand presumably still exists…then Utrania (as a major exporter) would surely export more oil with more available sources. Out.

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.
Correct. At first glance it might seem like this has nothing to do with exports, but in fact it has everything to do with it. One of the factors that would reduce exports is domestic need, i.e. the demand is coming from within. This in turn limits how much gets exported out.

C. most of the investment in the oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources. X
Goes in the opposite direction…we would think that exports would be higher because of this.

D. new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted. X
Similar reasoning as C…now we have even more oil on top of the oil from new fields.

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. X
Again opposite direction.
Current Student
Joined: 26 May 2020
Posts: 32
Own Kudos [?]: 16 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
Hi All,
Want to bring to notice a fact about option A. the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years.
Oil rates are expected to be relatively stable over next several years ==> Export market is demand + supply game ===> No Change in demand in market (International) ===> Demand will get fulfilled through existing channels ==> Deters the Oil export of Utrania despite the development of new oil fields.

Pl suggest flaw in above thinking.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Jan 2019
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 142
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
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

GMATNinja wrote:
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...

  • 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.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5193
Own Kudos [?]: 4676 [1]
Given Kudos: 638
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
nkshmalik1 wrote:
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,

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.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6929
Own Kudos [?]: 63923 [2]
Given Kudos: 1789
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
nkshmalik1 wrote:
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)!

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!
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2020
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 72
Location: Azerbaijan
Schools: Carroll
GMAT 1: 510 Q39 V21
GPA: 3
Send PM
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
More oil = more usage of that oil within Utrania. What can use more oil? R8, more cars.
Answer: B
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17322
Own Kudos [?]: 851 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades [#permalink]
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts