Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields. In consequence, Utranian oil exports dropped steadily as old fields became depleted. Utrania’s currently improving economic situation, together with less-restrictive regulations, will undoubtedly result in the rapid development of new fields . However, it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because ____________________________________________ .
- the price of oil is expected to remain relatively stable over the next several years
- the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles
- most of the investment in new oil fields in Utrania is expected to come from foreign sources
- new technology is available to recover oil from old oil fields formerly regarded as depleted
- many of the new oil fields in Utrania are likely to be as productive as those that were developed during the period when Utrania was a major oil exporter
Solution
Passage Analysis
| Utrania was formerly a major petroleum exporter, but in recent decades economic stagnation and restrictive regulations inhibited investment in new oil fields. | Key-points from this statement:
i. Economic stagnation ii. Restrictive regulations |
| In consequence, Utranian oil exports dropped steadily as old fields became depleted. | This statement shows how low investment in new oil fields led to a decline in Utrania’s oil exports. According to this statement, Utranian oil exports declined as old fields became depleted. |
| Utrania’s currently improving economic situation, together with less-restrictive regulations, will undoubtedly result in the rapid development of new fields. | From this statement we get to know that:
On the basis of the above two facts, the author states that new oil fields in Utrania will now see rapid development. |
| However, it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exports, because ____________________________________________ . | Key-points from this statement:
Since there is a blank at end of the passage and the use of word because before it, we are required to complete the author’s statement by citing a valid reason for his conclusion that it is too soon to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will lead to higher Utranian oil exports.
|
Loved the solution? Take a free trial to get unlimited access to concept files, live sessions, and practice questions. For any strategic advice for GMAT or MBA Admissions, write to us at acethegmat@e-gmat.com. We are the most reviewed GMAT prep company on GMATClub with more than 2400+ reviews
Pre-thinking
From the given question stem and our passage analysis, we can see that our job in this question is to come up with a valid reason for author’s conclusion as to why it’s too early to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will lead to higher Utranian oil exports. In other words, we are to support the prediction that rapid development of new oil-fields may not necessarily lead to higher Utranian oil exports.
In order to supports author’s conclusion we can think of a new piece of information that will somehow make it more likely that the increase in oil production will be absorbed locally in Utrania. So a possible strengthener could be:
- Utranian airlines industry, one of the largest in the world, is growing at an unprecedented rate due to which most of the companies are making huge investments in buying new aircrafts.
The above situation makes it plausible to think that Utranian oil consumption will increase dramatically. With this thought in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Analysis of Option Statements
| Answer Choice Analysis | |
| This is not the correct option. Neither the given argument nor answer choice A establishes a relationship between the stability of oil price and Utrania’s motivation to export oil. Hence, we have no reason to think that stable oil prices will discourage Utrania to export the oil produced from the new oil fields. Therefore, answer choice A fails to support the author’s conclusion. |
| This is the correct option. In the argument, we are clearly told that vis-à-vis the last few decades, Utrania’s economic situation is now improving. Now as per this choice, it is possible that due to this improvement, Utrania is likely to experience a dramatic/significant increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobiles. Such circumstances would make it likely that the increase in the oil-production will be absorbed locally. Under such circumstances, Utranian oil export may not be commensurate with the increase in oil-production. This validly supports the author’s conclusion. Also, please note the language used in this answer choice:the improvement in the economic situation in Utrania is expected to result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of Utranians who own automobilesImplication of the highlighted word:expected: This word does complete justice to author’s conclusion that: …. it would be premature to conclude that the rapid development of new fields will result in higher oil exportsNow the author doesn’t say in concrete terms that Utrania will not be able export more oil. He/She just says that it’s too soon to predict otherwise. Similarly, the correct answer choice does not say that Utrania will experience the dramatic increase in automobile ownership. It just says that it is expected to go through such a change. This mild aspect of the prediction matches with the reservation in author’s conclusion to predict concretely. Hence, this is the correct answer choice. |
| This answer choice is incorrect. It is out of scope. Neither the argument nor the answer choice establishes how the source of investment may impact the decision to export more or less oil. Hence, answer choice C is not correct. |
| This option is incorrect. Rather than strengthening, this choice weakens the author’s conclusion. The author’s conclusion is that it is too soon to predict that increase in oil will translate in higher oil exports by Utrania. As discussed in the pre-thinking phase, our job is to strengthen this argument by somehow showing how the increase in the produced oil may not be enough to boost the oil-exports. However, this answer choice indicates that it is possible to have more oil than was earlier predicted. This gives us reasons to doubt author’s conclusion as the author did not account for such an increase in oil production.Hence, answer choice D is not the correct answer. |
| This is not the correct answer choice as rather than strengthening the author’s logic, it weakens it.Going by the information given in the argument, Utrania was once a major oil exporter. Factoring this with the new information given in choice E, we are pushed in to thinking that if the old oil fields were productive enough to make Utrania a leading oil exporter, the new oil-field may too have the same capacity. As we can see, this is against the author’s conclusion. Clearly answer choice E promotes a logic that goes contrary to author’s conclusion. Hence, it is not the correct option. |
Loved the solution? Take a free trial to get unlimited access to concept files, live sessions, and practice questions. For any strategic advice for GMAT or MBA Admissions, write to us at acethegmat@e-gmat.com. We are the most reviewed GMAT prep company on GMATClub with more than 2400+ reviews
