BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

The use of snowmobiles !!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

The use of snowmobiles !!

by gmat_perfect » Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:17 pm
Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates sun acceptable 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

OA: A
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:34 pm
gmat_perfect wrote:Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates sun acceptable 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

OA: A
Hey... dont post OA along with answers.. it will bend our mind towards that answer only and limit our discussion and individual point.

OA is A by POE
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:37 pm
Phirozz wrote:
gmat_perfect wrote:Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates sun acceptable 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

OA: A
Hey... dont post OA along with answers.. it will bend our mind towards that answer only and limit our discussion and individual point.

OA is A by POE
how did u eliminate B
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:50 pm
thephoenix wrote:
Phirozz wrote:
gmat_perfect wrote:Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates sun acceptable 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

OA: A
Hey... dont post OA along with answers.. it will bend our mind towards that answer only and limit our discussion and individual point.

OA is A by POE
how did u eliminate B

Business spokespersons' argument is that Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville which benifits locals, and environmentalists counter attacked the same by saying its now not attracting cross country skiers due to noise and pollution generated by snowmobiles.

So there is only one out come ie attracting out of towners on which argument is based. And 'B' is saying, certain desirable outcome is outweighted by -ve aspects associated with it, it would have been correct if out of towners are still coming and the positive effect ie benifit to locals is outweighted by -ve effects is pollution and the noise level.

For example industrialization in a resident area causes pollution and health problems to residents and at the same time it creates employment to local residents. In this case B would have been the answer because u can say generating employment is outweighted by pollution and health problems.

Hope it helps...
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:38 am
My line of reasoning:

This argument is causal reasoning based.Let us figure it out how it is!!

Business guy says for the greater financial benefit many Out-of -towners has to come to Milvile.And to attract them snowmobiling is used.

This can be true if and Only if "No other people visit the park who can add greater financial benefits "to the park.Basically the B.S assumes that only source of income for great financial benefit comes from Out-of-towners.

Now our good hearted Environmenatalist says" Boss,U have forgotten that a great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

U can have a very very close look of the words many Out-of -towners & a great many cross-country [/b]skiers .

Its pretty clear revenues generated by Cross country skiers are more than out-of towners and A rightly brings in that Void in the assumption made by BS.

@@@Phiroz,U need to check ur reasoning.I am not really convinced.Plz do chk that out bro!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:33 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:2 members

by kstv » Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:17 am
I started by eliminating D and E. Almost choose C but it says the benefits could be achieved in greater degree. A great many skiers does not mean greater revenue, just that there is a stream of revenue which at the most will compensate the loss due to banning snowmobiles. Since the two activities are mutually exclusive.
B desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated - this is the spokespersons assumption. This is challenged by the environmentalist. B is a good option by A goes further as it talks of an alternative.
Choose A but under test condition it is very likely I could end up with B.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:04 am
gmatmachoman wrote:My line of reasoning:

This argument is causal reasoning based.Let us figure it out how it is!!

Business guy says for the greater financial benefit many Out-of -towners has to come to Milvile.And to attract them snowmobiling is used.

This can be true if and Only if "No other people visit the park who can add greater financial benefits "to the park.Basically the B.S assumes that only source of income for great financial benefit comes from Out-of-towners.

Now our good hearted Environmenatalist says" Boss,U have forgotten that a great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

U can have a very very close look of the words many Out-of -towners & a great many cross-country [/b]skiers .

Its pretty clear revenues generated by Cross country skiers are more than out-of towners and A rightly brings in that Void in the assumption made by BS.

@@@Phiroz,U need to check ur reasoning.I am not really convinced.Plz do chk that out bro!!
@gmatmachoman,
I have exactly the same reasoning as that of u to justify A. I had given my reasoning to eliminate B, if any flaw is there plz do correct me.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:18 am
Guys,

how did you get rid of E, was stuck between A and E
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Mon May 24, 2010 7:48 am
gmatmachoman wrote:My line of reasoning:

This argument is causal reasoning based.Let us figure it out how it is!!

Business guy says for the greater financial benefit many Out-of -towners has to come to Milvile.And to attract them snowmobiling is used.

This can be true if and Only if "No other people visit the park who can add greater financial benefits "to the park.Basically the B.S assumes that only source of income for great financial benefit comes from Out-of-towners.

Now our good hearted Environmenatalist says" Boss,U have forgotten that a great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

U can have a very very close look of the words many Out-of -towners & a great many cross-country [/b]skiers .

Its pretty clear revenues generated by Cross country skiers are more than out-of towners and A rightly brings in that Void in the assumption made by BS.

@@@Phiroz,U need to check ur reasoning.I am not really convinced.Plz do chk that out bro!!
Makes some sense though it is too heavy to digest :)

However, can you please throw some light on option B as to why it is correct/wrong here.

Thanks!
Best-
Amit
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:14 am
Seems.. that there is no fixed answer... look at this thread...

https://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-tough-one- ... 24740.html

moreover I have a source which says E is the answer... and personally I had chosen C.
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:750

by fitzgerald23 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:13 am
I thought this one was pretty clearly A. The argument boils down to this:

Businessman: Snowmobile riders come to the town and bring us money

Environmentalist: Cross country skiers are now avoiding our town

The rebuttal is no longer attacking the environmental impact but the economic one. The environmentalist is telling the business person that another group of people would provide economic benefit to the town if there was no pollution.

A. Correct. This is what he is attacking. The business person believes that people are only coming to the town because of the snowmobiling while the other points out that there is another group that would take their place and provide the same economic benefit.

B. Incorrect. He never talks about the negatives outweighing the positives in his rebuttal.

C. Incorrect. This is something I could see being the answer but he never really states that the skiers would bring greater impact economically than the snowmobile. He just points out that there are others who could bring money into the town if they visited.

D. Incorrect. Clearly this does not happen.

E. Incorrect. He is never challenging the benefit. He never says that the town does not benefit from the snowmobilers nor does he say the snowmobilers did not benefit from being allowed to use the town.
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:20 am
Thanks!!
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:750

by fitzgerald23 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:23 am
I thought this one was pretty clearly A. The argument boils down to this:

Businessman: Snowmobile riders come to the town and bring us money

Environmentalist: Cross country skiers are now avoiding our town

The rebuttal is no longer attacking the environmental impact but the economic one. The environmentalist is telling the business person that another group of people would provide economic benefit to the town if there was no pollution.

A. Correct. This is what he is attacking. The business person believes that people are only coming to the town because of the snowmobiling while the other points out that there is another group that would take their place and provide the same economic benefit.

B. Incorrect. He never talks about the negatives outweighing the positives in his rebuttal.

C. Incorrect. This is something I could see being the answer but he never really states that the skiers would bring greater impact economically than the snowmobile. He just points out that there are others who could bring money into the town if they visited.

D. Incorrect. Clearly this does not happen.

E. Incorrect. He is never challenging the benefit. He never says that the town does not benefit from the snowmobilers nor does he say the snowmobilers did not benefit from being allowed to use the town.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:07 am
Thanked: 72 times
Followed by:6 members

by manpsingh87 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:27 am
arora007 wrote:Seems.. that there is no fixed answer... look at this thread...


moreover I have a source which says E is the answer... and personally I had chosen C.
I think we can eliminate option E just reconsider what environmentalist is saying "A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate." lets try to understand the underline part by considering this scenario suppose 100 people visit Milville out of which only 25 return again next year for the job, i.e. out of 100 people 25 people are dependent upon the job which is created by snowmobiling ,that means environmentalist believes that they are actually people who got benefited out of it.
O Excellence... my search for you is on... you can be far.. but not beyond my reach!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:39 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by czarczar » Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:42 pm
fitzgerald23 wrote:I thought this one was pretty clearly A. The argument boils down to this:

Businessman: Snowmobile riders come to the town and bring us money

Environmentalist: Cross country skiers are now avoiding our town

The rebuttal is no longer attacking the environmental impact but the economic one. The environmentalist is telling the business person that another group of people would provide economic benefit to the town if there was no pollution.

A. Correct. This is what he is attacking. The business person believes that people are only coming to the town because of the snowmobiling while the other points out that there is another group that would take their place and provide the same economic benefit.

B. Incorrect. He never talks about the negatives outweighing the positives in his rebuttal.

C. Incorrect. This is something I could see being the answer but he never really states that the skiers would bring greater impact economically than the snowmobile. He just points out that there are others who could bring money into the town if they visited.

D. Incorrect. Clearly this does not happen.

E. Incorrect. He is never challenging the benefit. He never says that the town does not benefit from the snowmobilers nor does he say the snowmobilers did not benefit from being allowed to use the town.
Thanks man. :)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply