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.
_________________
Marty Murray
GMAT Coach
914-316-1288 (cell or WhatsApp)
m.w.murray@hotmail.com
http://infinitemindprep.com
close
