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

Redeem

Support

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:27 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:2 members

Support

by hey_thr67 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:45 am
More and more companies have begun to consume less energy by making themselves more efficient. Over time, these efforts could place the United States at the forefront of an emerging global market for cleaner technologies. Such efforts are also essential to tackling the two big energy-related issues of the age: global warming and the dependence on precarious supplies of oil. The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most effective support for the argument?

A: On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States.
B: Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995.
C: In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry.
D: The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming.
E: The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pm
Thanked: 99 times
Followed by:21 members

by vk_vinayak » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:37 am
hey_thr67 wrote:
Argument: The federal government (of USA) should encourage these efforts (using Green technologies) by providing the necessary incentives.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most effective support for the argument?

A: On the average, Canadian companies are more energy efficient than those in the United States. -> Comparing Canadian companies with US companies is irrelevant to the argument

B: Experts believe that energy efficiency could lower the energy use of the United States to the level of 1995. --> The energy usage level of 1995 may be lower than that of today, but still may not be low enough to tackle the two big problem mentioned in the stimulus. Insufficient info. Eliminate

C: In the past, government incentives have made advances in energy conservation feasible, especially in the auto industry. --> This directly supports the argument about giving incentive to companies to conserve energy. It has worked in the past. Chances are that it would work this time also. Keep it.

D: The dependence on foreign oil is a greater problem in the present than global warming. --> It doesn't matter to the argument which problem is bigger. Both are still problems. It doesn't affect the argument. Eliminate

E: The market for cleaner technologies is currently relatively small because of the infrastructure requirements. --> It's not clear if the market is small because of the lack of incentives. Eliminate

C seems the best potion to me.
Last edited by vk_vinayak on Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
Followed by:12 members
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:40 am
Between B and C - IMO C?
Regards,

Pranay
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times
Followed by:14 members

by [email protected] » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:31 am
Yes I have checked it once. The correct OA is C. No need to verify for that.

C is the only option that strengthens the argument. IF I say that X causes Y, and in the options I say or give that in the past this thing has happened, then I am strengthening the argument.

That is what it is....
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:38 am
pls, descontructure the argument, what is the conclusion and premises. how to go to the oa.

Thank you
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:27 am
Location: India
Thanked: 1 times

by beatthe800 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:08 am
Hi duongthang,

Premise:
Companies started to consume less energy -> more efficient-> America emerging global market
This would overcome the issues like global warming and the dependence on precarious supplies of oil

Conclusion: The federal government should encourage these efforts by providing the necessary incentives, whether as loans, direct grants or targeted tax breaks.

Now you need to find answer which supports the argument.

We have to show link between incentives and efficiency-> Which is answer C

B is strong contender: but not mentioned link between incentives and efficiency anywhere.

So C is the answer.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1