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 formerly 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.
OA:E
can someone explain this one?
Don't know why E undermines the argument...
thank u so much!
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Weaken--OLEX
This topic has expert replies
-
amysky_0205
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:5 members
-
Sam_hellboy
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:44 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
Conclusion : Therefore, OLEX's decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.
Goal - is to prove that there is some other concerns for which OLEX had decided to keep the plant open.
A - Does not weaken
B - Does not weaken
C - Does not weaken
D - TRAP. Says that, there will be no job loss. Same people can be absorbed. But our goal is to prove that its not because of the social concern, OLEX changed his decision. So eliminated
E - Correct. Says there are may other costs associated with the decision of closing the plant. Hence OLEX has changed its decision. Weakens.
Hope this helps. Any experts advise on my reasoning will surely help me.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers!!
Sam
Goal - is to prove that there is some other concerns for which OLEX had decided to keep the plant open.
A - Does not weaken
B - Does not weaken
C - Does not weaken
D - TRAP. Says that, there will be no job loss. Same people can be absorbed. But our goal is to prove that its not because of the social concern, OLEX changed his decision. So eliminated
E - Correct. Says there are may other costs associated with the decision of closing the plant. Hence OLEX has changed its decision. Weakens.
Hope this helps. Any experts advise on my reasoning will surely help me.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers!!
Sam
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Whenever you're given a conclusion that offers one explanation for a phenomenon - "the reason that they're keeping the plant open MUST be because they care!" - there is an implicit assumption that there is no other possible explanation. The best way to weaken any argument is to undermine the assumptions, so as Sam said, we want to find some explanation other than social concerns for why the plant would stay open.
Furthermore, since the conclusion gave a comparison - SOCIAL CONCERNS outweigh PROFITS - we probably want to find an alternative explanation that says that in fact profits were the primary motivator.
A. The fact that it's moderately profitable doesn't mean that it's more profitable to keep it open, since costs were higher.
B. We don't care whether we can consolidate at Grenville; that's not the point.
C. This gives another reason why Tasberg is preferable to Grenville, but it doesn't undermine the fact that they're keeping Grenville open for profit reasons, not for social concerns.
D. The fact that jobs at Grenville could be absorbed if the plant closed does nothing to provide an alternative explanation for why the plant stayed open.
E. If there is a significant cost associated with closing the Grenville plant, then the company has a compelling reason other than social concerns for keeping it open. CORRECT
Furthermore, since the conclusion gave a comparison - SOCIAL CONCERNS outweigh PROFITS - we probably want to find an alternative explanation that says that in fact profits were the primary motivator.
A. The fact that it's moderately profitable doesn't mean that it's more profitable to keep it open, since costs were higher.
B. We don't care whether we can consolidate at Grenville; that's not the point.
C. This gives another reason why Tasberg is preferable to Grenville, but it doesn't undermine the fact that they're keeping Grenville open for profit reasons, not for social concerns.
D. The fact that jobs at Grenville could be absorbed if the plant closed does nothing to provide an alternative explanation for why the plant stayed open.
E. If there is a significant cost associated with closing the Grenville plant, then the company has a compelling reason other than social concerns for keeping it open. CORRECT
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
