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
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
OLEX Petroleum
This topic has expert replies
-
LulaBrazilia
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:50 am
- Followed by:1 members
-
Patrick_GMATFix
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1052
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
- Thanked: 335 times
- Followed by:98 members
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.
-Patrick
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.
-Patrick
- Check out my site: GMATFix.com
- To prep my students I use this tool >> (screenshots, video)
- Ask me about tutoring.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
[email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
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
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
-
Abhishek009
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:37 am
- Location: Kolkata, India
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:2 members
Decision - Cut cost by closing the " G Refinery " and consolidating it at " T "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.
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
