Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry's ability to operate safely. However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by industry officials?

The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.

Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environment protection measures, but the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security.

Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.

There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.

Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry's ability to operate safely.	What it says: Industry officials claim that five years of cost-cutting pressure hasn't hurt safety What it does: Presents the industry's position defending their safety record despite cost pressures What it is: Industry officials' claim Visualization: Cost Pressure (High) + Safety (Maintained at 100%) = Industry says no connection
However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.	What it says: Environmentalists argue that recent spills and accidents are caused by cost-cutting What it does: Presents the opposing view that directly contradicts the industry officials' claim What it is: Environmentalists' counterclaim Visualization: Cost-Cutting Measures → Recent Oil Spills (15-20 incidents) + Plant Accidents (25-30 incidents)

Argument Flow:

The passage presents two opposing viewpoints without taking sides. First, we get the industry's defense that cost-cutting hasn't affected safety. Then environmentalists counter with evidence that cost-cutting is directly causing safety problems.

Main Conclusion:

This passage doesn't have a main conclusion - it's setting up a debate between industry officials who say cost-cutting doesn't affect safety and environmentalists who say it's causing accidents and spills.

Logical Structure:

This is a classic 'he said, she said' structure where two parties disagree about cause and effect. The industry says cost pressure → no safety impact, while environmentalists say cost-cutting → safety problems. We need to find evidence that would support the industry's position.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find evidence that supports the industry officials' claim that cost-cutting pressure hasn't hurt safety operations

Precision of Claims

The industry officials make a specific claim about a 5-year timeframe where cost-cutting pressure did NOT impair safety ability. Environmentalists counter with evidence of recent spills and accidents being traceable to cost-cutting. We need to be precise about the timing and causation.

Strategy

To strengthen the industry officials' position, we need information that either shows the recent accidents aren't actually caused by cost-cutting, or that safety has been maintained/improved despite cost pressures, or that there's an alternative explanation for the accidents that doesn't involve cost-cutting compromising safety.

Answer Choices Explained

The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.

This explains why the industry would want to avoid accidents (financial incentives), but it doesn't address whether cost-cutting pressure actually impaired safety operations. Just because the industry benefits from avoiding accidents doesn't mean they successfully maintained safety during cost-cutting periods. This is more about motivation than actual evidence of maintained safety performance.

This actually weakens the industry's position rather than strengthens it. If unions demanded additional safety spending but abandoned those demands, it suggests safety spending may have been inadequate. The fact that unions prioritized job security over safety measures implies that safety resources might indeed have been compromised during cost-cutting.

This directly strengthens the industry officials' claim by providing concrete evidence that safety wasn't compromised. Despite cost-cutting in other areas, the industry actually INCREASED resources for safety and environmental measures during the exact five-year period in question. This shows cost-cutting pressure didn't impair safety ability - it was enhanced. This directly counters environmentalists' claims that cost-cutting caused recent accidents.

There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.

This severely weakens the industry's position by providing direct evidence that cost-cutting measures caused preventable spills. If the most damaging spills would have been prevented without cost-cutting, this supports the environmentalists' contention rather than the industry officials' claim that cost-cutting didn't impair safety.

Both the large fines and adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spills have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.

This describes the industry's response AFTER the spills occurred, but doesn't address whether cost-cutting impaired safety during the five-year period. The fact that they increased resources after bad publicity suggests they may not have been adequately funding safety before the incidents, which would actually support the environmentalists' position.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...