Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters

Question

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.

Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.

The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the

(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill

(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project

(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action

(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it

(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

chetan2u · Accepted Answer

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.

Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.

The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the

So, the first point is to get to the conclusion. It is that the company has no environmental concern but concern for sales and profit only.

(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
 The company has already agreed to the motive of containing the damages that could have been caused by pics. So, if there is only one motive, then the environmental concern is a lie, because the company has agreed to the damage concern in the press..
Correct

(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
  Doesn't effect the conclusion in any way

(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
 Quite a few are going for this as an answer. 
But what is new in this..nothing. the environmentalist conclusion is almost the same, so it is merely rewording the conclusion. 
Also high regard for one thing does not mean there can't be a second concern.

(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
 Out of scope

(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills
 out of scope/context

AkshdeepS · Answer

The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the

I think we are being asked to assume something that has to be true to support the environmentalist's conclusion.
A type of strengthen question.

(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill

Keep it.

(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project

It does not matter. Environmentalist's conclusion is based on the profiting mindset of oil company. 
 
  (C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action

This looks good. If this is true, then Environmentalists conclusion stands firm. "Level of sales" can be considered profit/loss.

(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it

Out of scope.

(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

Irrelevant

From A and C, C seems better and more precise.

ballest127 · Answer

Hi Expert,

I think A is correct.

C is too strong.

Please explain the answer.

Thanks.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Two things.

Eliminating a choice because it is "too strong" is too simplistic. Using such approaches will not get you to correct answers to higher level CR questions. To perform at a high level in CR, you have to use fairly sophisticated, logical explanations for your choices.

Having said that, I have to agree that (A) is the better choice. What (C) says is about the past, and does not necessarily mean that the oil company is not concerned about the environment in this case.

So, good point, and perhaps, by "too strong" you meant something more logical than the words "too strong" seem to convey.

sayan640 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   mikemcgarry 
 chetan2u 
Can you please throw some light on this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

Burhanuddin · Answer

I am no expert but the reason why I believe A is a better answer choice is because C has a certain word "profit maximization' i think that profit maximization and 'damage control' are two different things. i am not sure if my line of reasoning is correct, correct me if i am wrong

Sneha333 · Answer

C is a better option.

In Point A --> oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill-->doesn't necessarily support the environmentalist's point.

If we negate this option A-->oil company can have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill.
It still supports the environmentalist' view .
Reason :It says that cleaning is not Company's main concern.Never said that it is their only concern.so,company can have multiple motives.

TheNightKing · Answer

Quick Question. Can we say profits is not necessarily equal to Sales and hence option C is incorrect?

chetan2u

Akp880 · Answer