Dear Friends,
I was having problems in answering the following question.
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates
unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.
Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in
winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate
that we put up with the pollution.
Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting
Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the
following?
A. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of
circumstances
B. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects
associated with producing that outcome
C. Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree
by a different means
D. Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist's position
in order to be better able to attack it
E. Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of
people actually benefited those people
Please help.
OA after some discussions.
My choice was option E
Regards
Deano.
Snowballs and environment
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:690
- tuanquang269
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
- Location: Vietnam
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:5 members
Choice E is incorrect because
E. Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people (This group is local resident) actually benefited those people (local resident) => But, the environmentalist talk about different people - cross-country skiers.
I confused between B and C, but I will go with B because I agree with the assumption of argument, which is stated in choice B: "certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects
associated with producing that outcome". This quotation is the assumption of the spokeperson. An environmentalist countered that the negative effect is more than the desirable outcome. So, this choice is correct.
E. Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people (This group is local resident) actually benefited those people (local resident) => But, the environmentalist talk about different people - cross-country skiers.
I confused between B and C, but I will go with B because I agree with the assumption of argument, which is stated in choice B: "certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects
associated with producing that outcome". This quotation is the assumption of the spokeperson. An environmentalist countered that the negative effect is more than the desirable outcome. So, this choice is correct.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:53 am
- Thanked: 52 times
- Followed by:5 members