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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to $1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Karishma is right, the key word here is EXPORT. Great internal consumption of oil products makes export forecast uncertain. B is clear
_________________

MGMAT1 - 610
MGMAT2 - 670
MGMAT3 - 640

OMG

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.

Hope this helps

thank you e gmat for deep analysis.

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

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.


And below is the OG question where weakener does shatter the conclusion:
(Posted on unlike-the-wholesale-price-of-raw-wool-the-wholesale-price-93250.html)

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.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

dear e gmat expert.

if in the second og , oa A is changed to
cost of processing of raw cotton increases much more than the price of raw cotton reduces

we have a situation in which a weakener truely shatter the conclusion.

but could you pls cite an og question which presents this case of shattering?

thank you e gmat experts.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to $1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

The OA is B guys.... Its a straight B. I can see no other answer fitting the bill.

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


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.”

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)

i go with E ... prodution remains the same ...

B only indicates that thered be more local demand ..if the productions 5/10/100 times bigger...it wont have any influence on export

oE?