Opponent of Offshore Oil Drilling: The projected benefits of

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: Dont 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.


Which of the following, if true, weakens the drilling proponent's reply?

A) New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new offshore oil drilling
B) Many of the largest oil deposits are located under land that isunsuitable for farming.
C) Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than fuel requirements. 
D) Legislation governing new oil drilling has been much more throughly articulated than has that governing new farms
E) The country under discussion imports a higher proportion of the farm products it needs than it does of the oil it needs.

HIMALAYA · Answer

C) Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than fuel requirements.

qpoo · Answer

A for me

The two do not have the same basis of comparison in that they do not
have the same serious consequence - although they might be similiar quantitatively.

Darth_McDaddy · Answer

I will choose A.

I had to read the arguments and the questions twice before I could attempt choosing the correct answer choice.

The opponent is trying to stress that the environmental risks are not worth the small quantity of oil extracted from the region, whereas the proponent criticizes the opponent by focussing on the small yield and neglecting the risk factors.

Only A addresses the risk factor.

Thus A

riteshgupta1 · Answer

Picked A for it...

It is all about the environment risk.. New oil wells are not worth the risk.

Dilshod · Answer

A it is the only choice that sticks exactly to the scope of the passage.

ranga41 · Answer

I choose A too, that is where lies the difference, oil wells are riskier than farms as told by the opponents.

gmataquaguy · Answer

OA is A.

HIMALAYA · Answer

sorry guys, i do not know how i answered this one. it has to be A. :twisted:

Bhai · Answer

A.

AJB77 · Answer

This is a classic case of "all other factors not being equal." Whenever we see an analogy, we need to think if the analogous situation mentioned in the argument matches up in terms of the factors or assumptions not mentioned in the argument, but are required for it.

Here, the opponent states that there is a risk with new oil wells and that risk has a greater value than the 0.5% addition in oil flow.

Therefore the proponent has to use a situation that is analogous both in terms of risk as well as output. The Farm analogy says nothing about the risk. Choice A refutes the analogy.

A it is.

Opponent of Offshore Oil Drilling: The projected benefits of

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