oil prices

already been discussed several times...

raunekk wrote:already been discussed several times...

I could not find the link in this Forum; could you pls provide the same?

google search instead of searching just on this forum, i have had better luck doing that.

i say A, OA sez B, and most people on other forums cant choose between B and E.

Just so you don't lose them - there are some views here as well..

https://www.beatthegmat.com/oil-prices-t23285.html

Jatinder wrote:Despite the approach of winter, oil prices to industrial customers are exceptionally low this year and likely to remain so. Therefore, unless the winter is especially severe, the price of natural gas to industrial customers is also likely to remain low.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the conclusion above?
(A) Long-term weather forecasts predict a mild winter.
(B) The industrial users who consume most natural gas can quickly and cheaply switch to using oil instead.
(C) The largest sources of supply for both oil and natural gas are in subtropical regions unlikely to be affected by winter weather.
(D) The fuel requirements of industrial users of natural gas are not seriously affected by the weather.
(E) Oil distribution is more likely to be affected by severe winter weather than is the distribution of natural gas

OA......to follow....

Here we have a classic scope shift: evidence about 1 thing (oil) and a conclusion about something different (gas).

To support the conclusion, we're going to need some kind of link between oil and gas. Since the author equates the two, we want a choice that links them together (if the author had drawn an opposite conclusion about gas, we'd look for an answer choice that highlights their differences).

Answers (b), (c) and (e) mention both oil and gas.

(b) says that gas users can switch to oil. Even without trying to understand it, we can see that's a link between the two.

(c) also gives us a link between the two.

(e) demontrates a difference between the two: eliminate (e).

Now we're down to (b) and (c). When you've narrowed it down to 2 choices, you always have 3 options:

(1) guess;
(2) validate a choice; or
(3) eliminate a choice.

For the sake of this exercise, let's assume we don't want to guess and are willing to invest more time. So, we can either eliminate one of the choices or validate one of them.

We can certainly validate (b), which tells us that oil is a viable alternative to gas. Accordingly, low oil prices will drive the market price of gas down as well (otherwise people would just switch).

We can also use Kaplan's Denial Test on (b). What would happen if the people who consume the most gas CANNOT switch to oil? Well, then oil prices are irrelevant to the gas market. If oil prices are irrelevant to the gas market, then we certainly don't have any reason to believe that gas prices will remain low. Since the denial of (b) casts doubt on the conclusion, (b) is a valid strengthener.

Alternatively, we can eliminate (c). (c) makes what we call an irrelevant comparison: it discusses 2 terms of interest (oil and gas), but compares them in a way that has no impact on the argument. Do we know the relevance of where fuel suppliers hang out? No. In order to make (c) relevant, we need other information which we don't have. Accordingly, eliminate (c).

Well I feel C is the answer. I guess I'm right. If some expert could throw