Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not due

Question

Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not due to any real shortage of oil, but was the result of collusion between international oil companies and oil-producing countries to artificially restrict the supply of oil in order to profit from higher prices. This is shown by the fact that after 1973 the profits of oil companies showed large increases, as did the incomes of oil-producing countries.

The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) fails to consider the possibility that a party can benefit from an event without helping to bring about that event
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that oil companies and oil-producing countries were the only parties to benefit from the 1973 oil crisis
(C) rests on using the term "profit" in an ambiguous way
(D) fails to establish that there was a worldwide oil surplus prior to the crisis of 1973
(E) fails to consider the possibility that events that occur simultaneously can be causally related

ashutosh_73 · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   AjiteshArun   MartyMurray , 
I know (B) is a very common sense answer, but i am not sure how to eliminate this option.
Here is what i think about (B):

So, the correct answer to a flaw question will act like a necessary assumption, right?

Okay, argument says: YOU PROFITED --> HENCE YOU WERE BEHIND THE ACT.

Now, if i say:  Hey, i was not the only one who profited. There are 10 more guys who profited.

Won't the above boldfaced statement severely weaken the logic of the argument?

KarishmaB · Answer

This is a flaw question. You don't have to try to weaken it. You have to find the flaw in the author's argument. You have to say what he did wrong. If I say, "YOU PROFITED --> HENCE YOU WERE BEHIND THE ACT" You have to say what mistake I committed. So you have to say, "You are failing to consider the possibility that a party can benefit from an event without helping to bring about that event" You have to highlight the mistake i have made in my reasoning. Can you say that I assumed that oil companies and oil-producing countries were the only parties to benefit from the 1973 oil crisis? No. May be I did, may be I did not - you don't know that. I said nothing about others in my argument. Flaw in Reasoning is discussed here: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

eeshajain · Answer

I got stuck between A and E, and not sure how to eliminate E. Can someone explain?

guddo · Answer

Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not due to any real shortage of oil, but was the result of collusion between international oil companies and oil-producing countries to artificially restrict the supply of oil in order to profit from higher prices. This is shown by the fact that after 1973 the profits of oil companies showed large increases, as did the incomes of oil-producing countries.
 
 The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

The argument concludes that oil companies and oil-producing countries must have caused the 1973 oil crisis because they later benefited from it. That is the key flaw: the argument treats later profit as proof of having created the event.

(A) fails to consider the possibility that a party can benefit from an event without helping to bring about that event

This is the best answer. The fact that oil companies and oil-producing countries made more money after the crisis does not prove that they caused it. A party can benefit from an event without having created it.

(B) presumes, without providing justification, that oil companies and oil-producing countries were the only parties to benefit from the 1973 oil crisis

This is not the main flaw. Even if others also benefited, that would not directly affect the argument’s bad reasoning from benefit to causation.

(C) rests on using the term "profit" in an ambiguous way

There is no important ambiguity here.

(D) fails to establish that there was a worldwide oil surplus prior to the crisis of 1973

The argument does not need to show a surplus. Its claim is that there was no real shortage, not that there was excess oil.

(E) fails to consider the possibility that events that occur simultaneously can be causally related

This is not the issue. The argument is not denying simultaneous causation. Its flaw is inferring cause from benefit.

Answer: (A)

Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not due

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

Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not due

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