Opening a plant in war-torn Country X is not inadvisable, despite what

Question

Opening a plant in war-torn Country X is not inadvisable, despite what critics of the plan may say. Ten years ago we opened our plant in Country Y in the middle of a revolution; that plant has been generating substantial profits ever since.

Which of the following is the author of the argument above most reasonably intending the reader to conclude?

A. Wars are profitable for the author's particular business.

B. Country X is a more politically stable nation than is Country Y.

C. Critics of the proposed plant in Country X are likely to be biased.

D. The proposed plant in Country X will generate profits despite the war.

E. The proposed plant in Country X will be more successful than the plant in Country Y.

Archit3110 · Answer

we need to find answer which would help in concluding the argument 
IMO d
The proposed plant in Country X will generate profits despite the war.

testpv · Answer

Could someone please explain the answer?  Bunuel

Since the first line reads "not advisable, despite what the critics may say", I stand confused on the conclusion the author is trying to make.

RJ7X0DefiningMyX · Answer

Please read again,  Opening a plant in war-torn Country X is not  inadvisable

harsh497 · Answer

I did not choose D because of its extreme language. It says that the country X 'will' definitely generate profits despite the war. I think D would have made sense if it had used 'may' or 'is likely to'.
I chose C based on POE.
 GMATNinja , could you please help?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

The Conclusion:  None is stated, but as the question stem alerts us, one is implied.

The Evidence:  A plant opened in Country Y during a revolution ten years ago has always generated substantial profits.

The author draws an analogy between the two plants. since the one in Country Y has made money, so too, she implies, will the one in Country X. The author’s point is that the plant can be successful despite the war, not that  (A)  the plant will be successful because of the war.

The author presents the two countries as similar, so she’s not arguing that  (B)  one is more stable than the other. The author is attacking her opponents’ argument, but not  (C)  their motives. She makes no judgment  (E)  as to which plant will be more successful. Remember, comparing and contrasting things that are considered equivalent in the stimulus is a common wrong answer type for inference questions.

Answer: D

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.

Opening a plant in war-torn Country X is not inadvisable, despite what

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

Opening a plant in war-torn Country X is not inadvisable, despite what

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