An oil field prospector and developer reported a large oil deposit in southwestern Texas. As a result, a large oil and gas company purchased the field with the intention of drilling oil wells in the area soon afterwards. However, the company found that what had been reported to be a large oil deposit was actually much smaller than had been indicated. Thus, the methods that the prospector had used to determine the size of the oil deposit must have been inaccurate.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The company's methods of measuring the size of the oil deposit were determined by a third party to be more accurate than those used by the prospector.
The prospector did not purposefully fabricate or misrepresent the size of the oil deposit.
Though smaller than originally thought, the oil deposit contained enough oil to make drilling commercially feasible.
The prospector did not explore other oil fields and use the same methods to determine the magnitude of the oil present, if any.
The company had successfully drilled for oil in other large oil fields in Texas throughout the early twentieth century.
OA is B why not A
explanation plzz..
This topic has expert replies
- DanaJ
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
- Thanked: 712 times
- Followed by:550 members
- GMAT Score:770
Well, you see, there are two reasons why the oil deposit could have been over evaluated:
1. the oil field prospector and the developer used a method that was not efficient: using the wrong tools and stuff like that
2. they lied so the developer (who usually owns the land) could get a better price for that specific parcel.
Now, the argument here is that "the methods that the prospector had used to determine the size of the oil deposit must have been inaccurate". In order for this to be true, you have to eliminate the assumption that they purposely lied about the size of the oil deposit.
I think that your mistake here is confusing the argument of the text: as shown above, the argument is whether the methods they used were accurate. A would have been the right answer if the argument had been determining the size of the deposit.
1. the oil field prospector and the developer used a method that was not efficient: using the wrong tools and stuff like that
2. they lied so the developer (who usually owns the land) could get a better price for that specific parcel.
Now, the argument here is that "the methods that the prospector had used to determine the size of the oil deposit must have been inaccurate". In order for this to be true, you have to eliminate the assumption that they purposely lied about the size of the oil deposit.
I think that your mistake here is confusing the argument of the text: as shown above, the argument is whether the methods they used were accurate. A would have been the right answer if the argument had been determining the size of the deposit.
I think the assumptions here are,
1) prospector did not fabricate or misrepresent the size of the oil deposit.
2) company's methods of measuring the size is accurate.
If we take these 2 assumption then only this statement holds
" company can claim that methods that the prospector had used to determine the size of the oil deposit must have been inaccurate "
But this leaves us with option A and B both.
I m confused which one should be the answer.
1) prospector did not fabricate or misrepresent the size of the oil deposit.
2) company's methods of measuring the size is accurate.
If we take these 2 assumption then only this statement holds
" company can claim that methods that the prospector had used to determine the size of the oil deposit must have been inaccurate "
But this leaves us with option A and B both.
I m confused which one should be the answer.
GMAT/MBA Expert
- Ian Stewart
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2621
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
- Location: Montreal
- Thanked: 1090 times
- Followed by:355 members
- GMAT Score:780
I can see why some might choose A) here, but as Dana points out above, B) is a necessary assumption in the argument. It's useful to notice, in CR questions, what information you should be accepting as 'absolute fact'. The stem says "However, the company found that what had been reported to be a large oil deposit was actually much smaller than had been indicated." This is a fact; it is not an assumption. We should accept as true that the oil deposit is not as large as the prospector claimed. Whether the "third party" mentioned in answer choice A) thinks the company has better methods than the prospector is immaterial (and, to see why A) is truly unimportant here, you might ask: 'who cares what a third party thinks, if we don't know how reliable that third party is?').
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com
ianstewartgmat.com
ianstewartgmat.com
Conclusion : The methods that the prospector had used to determine the size of the oil deposit must have been inaccurate.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The company's methods of measuring the size of the oil deposit were determined by a third party to be more accurate than those used by the prospector. Who care whether the measurement is done by prospector or 3rd party.
The prospector did not purposefully fabricate or misrepresent the size of the oil deposit. Correct. If this is not the case then measurement might be true which is against the conclusion.
Though smaller than originally thought, the oil deposit contained enough oil to make drilling commercially feasible. Conclusion is about methods.
The prospector did not explore other oil fields and use the same methods to determine the magnitude of the oil present, if any. irrelevant
The company had successfully drilled for oil in other large oil fields in Texas throughout the early twentieth century. Irrelevant
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
The company's methods of measuring the size of the oil deposit were determined by a third party to be more accurate than those used by the prospector. Who care whether the measurement is done by prospector or 3rd party.
The prospector did not purposefully fabricate or misrepresent the size of the oil deposit. Correct. If this is not the case then measurement might be true which is against the conclusion.
Though smaller than originally thought, the oil deposit contained enough oil to make drilling commercially feasible. Conclusion is about methods.
The prospector did not explore other oil fields and use the same methods to determine the magnitude of the oil present, if any. irrelevant
The company had successfully drilled for oil in other large oil fields in Texas throughout the early twentieth century. Irrelevant