Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry's ability to operate safely. However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.
Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by industry officials?
(A) The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.
(B) Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security.
(C) Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.
(D) There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.
(E) Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.
OA C
Source: Official Guide
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Option A - INCORRECT.
According to the statement by the petrochemical industry officials, it is obvious that the petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product. Hence, this statement is not the main purpose of the argument.
Option B - INCORRECT.
The statement in this option maybe true, but was not in anyway stated in the argument to ascertain the reason behind the cutting cost. However, the Petrochemical industry unions may have demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions have recently abandoned those demands in exchange for job security over-sighting life security.
Option C - CORRECT.
This option has proven to support the Petrochemical industries officials. According to the statement by the officials of the petrochemical industries, it is obvious that despite the major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years. However, this mission in the last five years has been unable to prove worthy of curbing the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants and this has also been traceable to the mission of cost-cutting measures.
Option D - INCORRECT.
Critically analyzing the statement provided, there is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted by the union.
Option E- INCORRECT.
This option i think is an assumption deduced from the argument, because if both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention, there won't be an argument on the improper management of oil spillage and other environmental hazards in the petrochemical industries.
According to the statement by the petrochemical industry officials, it is obvious that the petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product. Hence, this statement is not the main purpose of the argument.
Option B - INCORRECT.
The statement in this option maybe true, but was not in anyway stated in the argument to ascertain the reason behind the cutting cost. However, the Petrochemical industry unions may have demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions have recently abandoned those demands in exchange for job security over-sighting life security.
Option C - CORRECT.
This option has proven to support the Petrochemical industries officials. According to the statement by the officials of the petrochemical industries, it is obvious that despite the major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years. However, this mission in the last five years has been unable to prove worthy of curbing the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants and this has also been traceable to the mission of cost-cutting measures.
Option D - INCORRECT.
Critically analyzing the statement provided, there is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted by the union.
Option E- INCORRECT.
This option i think is an assumption deduced from the argument, because if both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention, there won't be an argument on the improper management of oil spillage and other environmental hazards in the petrochemical industries.
