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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

OLEX Petroleum

Expert replies
by LulaBrazilia » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:43 pm
The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery. Closing the Grenville refinery, however, would mean the immediate loss of about 1,200 jobs in the Grenville area. Eventually the lives of more than 10,000 people would be seriously disrupted. Therefore, OLEX's decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument given?

(A) The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderately profitable for many years.

(B) Even though OLEX could consolidate all its refining at the Tasberg plant, doing so at the Grenville plant would not be feasible.

(C) The Tasberg refinery is more favorably situated than the Grenville refinery with respect to the major supply routes for raw petroleum.

(D) If the Grenville refinery were ever closed and operations at the Tasberg refinery expanded, job openings at Tasberg would to the extent possible be filled with people formally employed at Grenville.

(E) Closure of the Grenville refinery would mean compliance, at enormous cost, with demanding local codes regulating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Patrick_GMATFix » Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:19 pm
The conclusion is that OLEX's decision to keep Grenville open shows that social concerns outweigh profit concerns at the company. This is based on 2 premises: (1) OLEX determined that it could cut refining costs by closing Grenville, and (2) Closing Grenville would lead to heavy job loss and serious social disruption.

To weaken the argument, the right answer will provide evidence that ultimately, keeping Grenville open helps the company's bottom line (profit). for instance, evidence that any benefits from lower refining costs would be outweighed by increases in other costs or decreases in revenues would show that OLEX may have made its decision based on profit concerns.

The full solution below is taken from the GMATFix App.

Image

-Patrick
  • Ask me about tutoring.
Join the discussion

by [email protected] » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:26 am
Hi LulaBrazilia,

This CR prompt is a WEAKEN question - we need to understand the logic behind the prompt and then attack it.

The Facts:
-The OLEX Company can cut refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating refining at its Tasberg refinery.
-Closing the Grenville refinery will = a loss of about 1200 jobs in Grenville (and more than 10,000 lives would be disrupted).
-OLEX announced that is would keep the Grenville refinery open.

The Conclusion:
- The decision to keep Grenville open shows that OLEX's social concerns SOMETIMES OUTWEIGH the desire for high profits.

The Logic:
-OLEX's only reason to keep the Grenville refinery open was for social concerns and high profits were NOT a factor in its decision-making.

To weaken the logic, we need an answer that tells us that OLEX made its decision to keep the Grenville refinery open for some reason other than social concerns (and likely involves profits).

Answer E explains how closing the Grenville refinery would lead OLEX to an enormous cost, which would effect its profitability. So, keeping the Grenville refinery open was NOT for social concerns, but for cost concerns.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Join the discussion

by Abhishek009 » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:54 am
LulaBrazilia wrote:The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery. Closing the Grenville refinery, however, would mean the immediate loss of about 1,200 jobs in the Grenville area. Eventually the lives of more than 10,000 people would be seriously disrupted. Therefore, OLEX's decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.
Decision - Cut cost by closing the " G Refinery " and consolidating it at " T "

Result - Loss of 1200 jobs affecting lives of more than 10,000 people.

Course of Action - Decided to keep " G Refinery open

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument given?

(A) The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderately profitable for many years.

The objective is for lowering cost of Production - Irrelevant and Out of scope.

(B) Even though OLEX could consolidate all its refining at the Tasberg plant, doing so at the Grenville plant would not be feasible.

Irrelevant , we know it , then Y has the Firm decided to continue production from " G Firm " ?

The answer remains unanswered.

(C) The Tasberg refinery is more favorably situated than the Grenville refinery with respect to the major supply routes for raw petroleum.

So , why is the firm not moving to " T firm " ?

(D) If the Grenville refinery were ever closed and operations at the Tasberg refinery expanded, job openings at Tasberg would to the extent possible be filled with people formally employed at Grenville.

Irrelevant to the present context.

(E) Closure of the Grenville refinery would mean compliance, at enormous cost, with demanding local codes regulating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites

If shifting to " T" costs more then the Firm would prefer not doing so...


Hence IMO (E) looks the best ...
Abhishek
Join the discussion