In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered

Question

In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago.
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration.
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade.
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

Source: LSAT

i chose A but OA is E. i don't think E can really be the reason why consumption increased but A explained it directly.
can someone help please.

generis · Accepted Answer

adkikani  , You wrote:

If  same volume  of oil is available for extraction, and if no additional oil fields
are discovered, how could yearly  consumption  of domestically produced oil  
. . .  HAVE INCREASED without a simultaneous decrease in available oil levels   ?

Whoops. You are answering the wrong question. We do not need to explain the increase in consumption.

We need to explain this apparent paradox: increased consumption of oil should have decreased oil reserve levels. Oil reserve levels did not drop.

How can we consume more oil, but have the same amount of oil in reserve? That discrepancy needs to be explained.

I am not sure what went wrong.

Why  is the "same volume of oil" available for extraction? There should be LESS.

Option D does not explain the disparity. Option D probably makes things worse.

1) A price drop does not explain the seeming contradiction between escalated consumption and oil reserves whose levels stayed the same although no new oil fields were discovered.

A lower price cannot explain how available reserve levels can be the same as 10 years ago. Price changes do not create more extractable oil.

2) Option D makes things worse.
If anything -- you are correct about this part -- decreased price equals increased consumption . . .

But a  greater  increase in consumption should FURTHER decrease reserve levels. 
A price drop makes the discrepancy  worse  (harder to explain).

Increased consumption ... no new oil fields ... but proven oil reserve levels have not dropped? Have stayed the same?
 
Which answer explains this seeming paradox?

(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade,  much oil  previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

The same fields with the same oil have been altered; technology made the fields able to produce more oil.
That increased production compensated for, or offset, the increase in consumption.
 
This language is the key to the whole question:   "proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields . . ."  
When LSAC people write definitions that seem incidental or ancillary, pay very close attention to the language. 
LSAC folks get specific with language for a reason. 
In this case, the reason was to give us a BIG HINT about how to reconcile what seemed like contradictory events.
"Extractability" is the only part of the contradiction that has "give" (that has flexibility, that contains the potential for change).

Hope that helps.

chetan2u · Answer

Hi
A is ruled out because of the coloured portion

The statement above itself says domestic oil consumption has increased.
A just says that consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly, but the fact remains that domestic oil consumption too has increased.
So A can be ruled out..

Now E tells us that the new methods have found new oil in the existing oil fields.
This reconciles the fact that even with more consumption and no new fields found, the oil reserves remain the same

YangYichen · Answer

chetan2u  u go straight to the heart of my problem
i got u point thx a lot!

Nahid078 · Answer

In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago.
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration.
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade.
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

LHC8717 · Answer

Hi,
I was hesitating between A and E and wrongly chose A

So why A is wrong?? I think maybe because the consumption of imported oil may be not correlated with the consumption of domestic oil and therefore the amount of oil extractable muss decrease -> Not resolve the paradox
But I am not sure of this assumption to make this statement wrong, if anyone could help me..

sobby · Answer

I also went for A..but later saw that argument is telling about "domestically produced oil".....missing one word and u fell in the GMAT trap.......

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Simplify the argument given -

1. the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.
2. No new fields have been discovered.

However,
the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields is at the same level

We need to explain the last statement.

A - Incorrect.
Not relevant because we know from point #1 that the consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

B - Incorrect.
Okay. But still we know that the consumption of domestically produced oil has increased. Hence, logically, the amount of oil considered extractable must reduce.

C - Incorrect.
Does not add any new information as we already know that no new fields of consequence have been discovered.
Hence, this does not explain the why amount of oil considered extractable is at the same level.

D - Incorrect.
Reduction in price --> leads to more consumption --> worsens the paradox

E - Correct answer.
this explains why even though the consumption of oil has increased, there has been no decline in the amount of oil considered extractable. Because oil that wasn't earlier considered extractable is now extractable.

chesstitans · Answer

A is not the right answer because higher increasing does not mean the higher consumption of imported oil.
In addition, the word "domestic oil" is unclear and tricky -> A should be avoided.

GMATSkilled · Answer

In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago.
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration.
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade.
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

Source: LSAT

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.  This simply states that the consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil. This also means that the consumption of domestic oil has increased (not more than imported oil but has increased definitely). If this is the case we expect the level to be lower than what it was a decade ago 
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago.  Again, it says conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption. This also means that there has been some consumption of the oil. If that is the case, we expect the oil level to be lower than what it was a decade ago 
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration.  Again, oil exploration in the United States has slowed not stopped. So we expect the level of oil to be lower than what it was 10 years ago 
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade.  Opposite to what we want. If the price has fallen, we expect the consumption to increase 
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.  Here we are given something different. If oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable, then the extra oil that is obtain is what was used in the past 10 years.

adkikani · Answer

GMATNinja   VeritasPrepKarishma   nightblade354   pikolo2510   generis

Why is (D) an opposite answer?

If same volume of oil is available for extraction, and if no additional oil fields
are discovered, how could yearly consumption of  domestically  produced oil increase?

If price falls, more people will be able to buy the oil now and hence the consumption shall increase.
Is not this the explanation we are looking for?

David nguyen · Answer

In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Main Issue : No new oil fields, Annual Consumption = increased. (Oil reserves level = same)
 Main group : Domestically produced oil

Given that Oil reserves level is the same as they were ten years ago and No new oil fields have been discovered, the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased. That's odd! Where do they get the oil from then?

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

Wrong group. Imported oil is out of the context; the main group is the domestically produced oil. (A) is out.
 
Effort to lower the consumption rate does not explain why the consumption was increased first place. (B) is out.
 
But why consumption went up when there were no new oil fields discovered? (C) is out.
 
Lower price, higher demand: but where do they get the oil from? (D) is out.

So what this is saying is that known oil fields that once were unextractable are now extractable. They must have gotten the oils from here. In addition, the amount of oil that was extracted from extractable sources for reserves has been untouched for the past 10 years.

(E) is the last man standing. (E) is our choice.

unraveled · Answer

The problem is that question asks for BEST option that reconciles.
A, B and E are contenders but the problem with A and B is that they both need further assumptions to be made so that they best resolve the discrepancy. On the other hand, E is not only relatively better but also quite straight forward.

soondoobu · Answer

In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields—are at the same level as they were ten years ago. Yet over this same period no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered, and the annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

Which one of the following, if true, best reconciles the discrepancy described above?

(A) Over the past decade the annual consumption of imported oil has increased more rapidly than that of domestic oil in the United States.  We are not concerned with imported oil, only domestic oil. 
(B) Conservation measures have lowered the rate of growth of domestic oil consumption from what it was a decade ago.  This contradicts what the passage says. Passage says that the consumption has increased. 
(C) Oil exploration in the United States has slowed due to increased concern over the environmental impact of such exploration.  The question stem says that "no new oil fields of any consequence have been discovered". This contradicts what answer choice C says, which says "oil exploration has slowed" 
(D) The price of domestically produced oil has fallen substantially over the past decade.  We are not concerned about the price of oil. It is tempting to conclude that the price drop caused the annual consumption to increase - but this is not the case. We cannot create our own story. 
(E) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable. Absolutely. This could be a reason why the proven oil reserves are at the same level as they were ten years ago - because technology was not as advanced back then, and the improvement in technology allowed that level to stay the same over the years.

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.

In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In the United States proven oil reserves—the amount of oil considered

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