otter

nauman · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: otter

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the
(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

can somebody explain this?

ikant · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject:

I think the answer is C.

The environmentalist stresses the fact that the oil company cleaned the otters because they did not want to tarnih their imgae which in turn might have affected their sales.

So option c that says oil company's decions are giverned by their profits makes it strong that they cleaned the otters just to save their bottomline rather than to support an environmental cause.

Let me know the correct answer.

lunarpower · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:16 am Post subject:

nope, the correct answer should be a.

the question here is code for 'which of the following is a necessary assumption in this problem?' whenever you look for a necessary assumption, you need to find the conclusion first; if you don't find the conclusion, you won't be able to figure out the logic of the argument at all (and therefore won't be in a position to recognize what assumptions are necessary for it).

in this problem, the environmentalist's conclusion is 'you have no such concern.'
in order to draw that conclusion, the environmentalist MUST have a valid reason for leapfrogging from 'your concern is profit' to 'therefore, your concern is not the environment'. only choice a leads to any connection between those two assertions, so a is the correct answer.

always identify the conclusion first!

nauman · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:36 am Post subject:

Thanks ron for your detailed answer, it helped me to understand the answer. OA is A

OnapiIndia · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:16 am Post subject:

Thanks from my side also.