Critical Reasoning

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.

IMO A

nervesofsteel wrote: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.

Fact1: amount of oil extractable are at same level
Fact2a: no new oil fields discovered
Fact2b: annual consumption of domestically oil has increased

A: consumption of imported oil increased more than domestic oil... that means though less but consumption of domestic oil has increased.. so how can amount of oil extractable is at same level.. incorrect
B: Even if consumption is lowered still this would lead to reduction in amount of oil extractable..
C: irrelevent
D: irrelevent
E: only reason perfectly tells that even though domestic consumption increases still extractable level remains same..

IMO E !

nervesofsteel wrote: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.

NONE OF THE OPTIONS ARE RIGHT


Option A is not talking about discrepency, rather comparing consumption of imported oil and domestic oil. Clearly out of scope...

First sentence of the psg says ''the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields-are at the same level as they were ten years ago''

And E contradicts the argument. According to E, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable. It means extractable oil now is more than that of ten years ago.

So NONE of the options solves the discrepency.

experts please help...

nervesofsteel wrote: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.

First, ensure that you understand the discrepancy!

On the one hand, more domestically extracted oil is being used and no significant new sources have been found.
On the other hand, proven US oil reserves have not declined.

A irrevelant
B consumption has still increased, albeit more slowly - irrevelant
C reason for lack of new sources is irrevelant
D price is irrelevant
E more oil can be extracted from existing sources thanks to advances- correct

kevincanspain wrote:
First, ensure that you understand the discrepancy!

On the one hand, more domestically extracted oil is being used and no significant new sources have been found.
On the other hand, proven US oil reserves have not declined.

A irrevelant
B consumption has still increased, albeit more slowly - irrevelant
C reason for lack of new sources is irrevelant
D price is irrelevant
E more oil can be extracted from existing sources thanks to advances- correct

As per argument ''Proven Oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago''. And E clearly contradicts this.

I agree that E is better among given options, but it does not solve the discrepency.

Phirozz wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:
First, ensure that you understand the discrepancy!

On the one hand, more domestically extracted oil is being used and no significant new sources have been found.
On the other hand, proven US oil reserves have not declined.

A irrevelant
B consumption has still increased, albeit more slowly - irrevelant
C reason for lack of new sources is irrevelant
D price is irrelevant
E more oil can be extracted from existing sources thanks to advances- correct

As per argument ''Proven Oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago''. And E clearly contradicts this.

I agree that E is better among given options, but it does not solve the discrepency.

E does not contradict the notion that proven oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago, but rather shows how it is possible: the use of domestic oil reserves has been exactly matched by an increase in the amount of oil that can be extracted from those sources

kevincanspain wrote:
E does not contradict the notion that proven oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago, but rather shows how it is possible: the use of domestic oil reserves has been exactly matched by an increase in the amount of oil that can be extracted from those sources

According to psg, proven oil reserves is nothing but amount of oil considered extractable.

1st sentence states that ''amount of oil considered extractable are at same level as they were a decade ago''

Now dont u think option E contradicts the above bold part ? Because it says, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable, as a result oil considered extractable now will increase.

where am I wrong ?

Phirozz wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:
E does not contradict the notion that proven oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago, but rather shows how it is possible: the use of domestic oil reserves has been exactly matched by an increase in the amount of oil that can be extracted from those sources

According to psg, proven oil reserves is nothing but amount of oil considered extractable.

1st sentence states that ''amount of oil considered extractable are at same level as they were a decade ago''

Now dont u think option E contradicts the above bold part ? Because it says, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable, as a result oil considered extractable now will increase.

where am I wrong ?

here is the way i see it. lets say greater than 100 litres of oil was available 2 years ago for extraction. in this 2 years oil extraction has been done(let us say 60 litres), but still as of today greater than 100 litres of oil is available for extraction. option E tells us that probably 2 years ago the technology told us that only greater than 100 litres was available but in reality it should have been greater than 160 litres

i chose this answer because it is the best possible option

Phirozz wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:
E does not contradict the notion that proven oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago, but rather shows how it is possible: the use of domestic oil reserves has been exactly matched by an increase in the amount of oil that can be extracted from those sources

According to psg, proven oil reserves is nothing but amount of oil considered extractable.

1st sentence states that ''amount of oil considered extractable are at same level as they were a decade ago''

Now dont u think option E contradicts the above bold part ? Because it says, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable, as a result oil considered extractable now will increase.

where am I wrong ?

Remember that domestic oil has been consumed in the meantime!

outreach wrote:

Phirozz wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:
E does not contradict the notion that proven oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago, but rather shows how it is possible: the use of domestic oil reserves has been exactly matched by an increase in the amount of oil that can be extracted from those sources

According to psg, proven oil reserves is nothing but amount of oil considered extractable.

1st sentence states that ''amount of oil considered extractable are at same level as they were a decade ago''

Now dont u think option E contradicts the above bold part ? Because it says, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable, as a result oil considered extractable now will increase.

where am I wrong ?

here is the way i see it. lets say greater than 100 litres of oil was available 2 years ago for extraction. in this 2 years oil extraction has been done(let us say 60 litres), but still as of today greater than 100 litres of oil is available for extraction. option E tells us that probably 2 years ago the technology told us that only greater than 100 litres was available but in reality it should have been greater than 160 litres

i chose this answer because it is the best possible option

got it thanks a ton @outreach and @kevincanspain

kevincanspain wrote:

Phirozz wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:
E does not contradict the notion that proven oil reserves are at the same level as they were a decade ago, but rather shows how it is possible: the use of domestic oil reserves has been exactly matched by an increase in the amount of oil that can be extracted from those sources

According to psg, proven oil reserves is nothing but amount of oil considered extractable.

1st sentence states that ''amount of oil considered extractable are at same level as they were a decade ago''

Now dont u think option E contradicts the above bold part ? Because it says, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable, as a result oil considered extractable now will increase.

where am I wrong ?

Remember that domestic oil has been consumed in the meantime!

thanx a lot @kevincanspain

You got my doubt cleared... this is what my doubt was. I ignored consumption part completely..

thanx again

Thanks Everyone....
OA E

nervesofsteel wrote: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?

As Kevin noted, the key is to understand the apparent discrepancy and to make note of key details.

Here are the key facts:

1) the amount of oil considered extractable from known fields is the same as it was 10 years ago.
2) there are no new oil fields.
3) annual consumption of domestically produced oil has increased.

They key to this question is to recognize that "no new oil fields" doesn't mean "no new oil" - it just means that there are no new fields. So, to resolve the discrepancy, we need to find a source for new oil that doesn't involve new fields; in other words, we want to show that existing fields are producing new oil.

Only (E) gives us what we want.