Opponent of offshore oil drilling CR question from Veritas

Question

Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country’s daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don’t be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent’s reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by:
(A) Offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent
(B) Claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate
(C) Pointing out that the drilling opponent’s argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing
(D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported
(E) Proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent’s evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent

Source: Veritas

MikeScarn · Answer

This is how I broke it down:

Opponent: Benefits of new oil wells would not outweigh the risk. The current wells only bring a small % of oil. Additional wells would only provide a very small increase in %.

Proponent: That's a silly way of thinking. That's equivalent to saying new farms shouldn't be allowed because new farms couldn't provide enough food for the entire country.

My thoughts: Proponent isn't considering the risks of new wells.

The proponent doesn't provide any evidence.  Eliminate

The proponent doesn't argue that factuality of the opponent. The proponent argues with the method of reasoning of the opponent.  Eliminate

This one is closer because we are talking about the opponents method of reasoning for the argument. But "of a frequently legitimate way of arguing" is out of scope. We don't know how frequent this method of arguing is. Make no assumptions.  Eliminate

The proponent does make a parallel scenario and argument.  Hold .

The proponent doesn't propose a conclusion regarding the drilling opponents evidence. The proponent attempts to make a parallel scenario and argument.  Eliminate

Answer:  D

tinbq · Answer

Hi experts,
Please help to explain why each choice is right or wrong. Thanks.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The drilling proponent’s reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by:

(A) Offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent  The proponent is not producing any new evidence at all, let alone evidence that is more decisive. Eliminate.

(B) Claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate  The proponent does not doubt the accuracy of the statistics. Eliminate.

(C) Pointing out that the drilling opponent’s argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing  This is an attractive answer option because it attacks the context of the opponent's argument, the same strategy adopted by the proponent. However, we do not know if the opponent's argument is used frequently. However, we can hold on to this option at this point.

(D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported  This is a much better option. The proponent provides the same argument as the opponent in a different context, and argues that the conclusion reached in that case is not logical. Correct answer.

(E) Proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent’s evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent  The proponent does not propose an acceptable conclusion about the farms. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Opponent of offshore oil drilling CR question from Veritas

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Opponent of offshore oil drilling CR question from Veritas

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards