Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville

[singh.181]

Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokesperson’s argument?

A. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

B. Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.

C. Snowmobiles, because they run on two-cycle engines, emit greater amounts of hydrocarbons and particulate matters than cars do.

D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.

E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

I am confused between A and B.
Initially, I thought A is incorrect because we have to make an assumption that "cross-country skiers" will bring more economy to town than "out-of-towners to Milville who are visit town because of Snowmobiling".
Whereas, B made more sense because if not all people who use snowmobiling are outsiders than Spokesperson point is weaken.

OA : A
Please suggest.

[jnelson0612]

Okay, so how will we weaken the Milville business spokesperson's argument?

Conclusion: It is basic economics to put up with the pollution.
WHY?
Premise: Snowmobiling brings in visitors who spend money in Milville. The money brought in indirectly benefits the Milville residents.
Assumption: There is nothing about the pollution itself that may have an effect on the town's ability to attract the visitors, and thus profit economically.

A directly weakens this assumption. We may get the out of town snowmobilers, but their pollution is going to cause us to lose the out of town skiers. So overall this economic benefit may be counterbalanced by losing the benefit of the skiers.

B is less helpful because the whole argument is about the out of town people who come to snowmobile and whether we should put up with their pollution so we can get their money. People from the area aren't really part of the argument.

[agarwalmanoj2000]

E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

Please advise, why option E is wrong?

As per option E, the economic benefit will be reduced if Milville residents do not pay fees for recreational use of the park, so snowmobiling should be banned.

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

E. Many Milville residents object to having to pay fees for recreational use of the park in the winter.

Please advise, why option E is wrong?

As per option E, the economic benefit will be reduced if Milville residents do not pay fees for recreational use of the park, so snowmobiling should be banned.

Thanks in advance.

if anything, that choice further strengthens the business spokesman's argument.
that answer choice states that the town's residents don't feel like they should have to pay to use the park. (note that it doesn't say anything about whether those residents actually are paying, or whether they choose to stay away from the park because of the fees as you appear to be assuming.)
if that's the case, then it becomes more important to attract out-of-town visitors to the park, so that those people can pay the fees so that the town residents don't have to. this makes the spokesman's argument more pertinent.

[onkipak]

Hi Instructors,

I don't understand why D cannot be the answer. If pollution can be reduced without adverse effect on economy, then, it is possible that banning snowmobiles wouldn't create economic lost to the town.

D. Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.

Thanks in advance!!

[RonPurewal]

Hi Instructors,

I don't understand why D cannot be the answer. If pollution can be reduced without adverse effect on economy, then, it is possible that banning snowmobiles wouldn't create economic lost to the town.

Nope. Not possible.
The argument explicitly states that snowmobiling works "to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents". If snowmobiling goes away, that benefit goes away, too.

[Navneet]

Hi Ron,
I rejected option A as MB spokesperson has already said that snowmobiling is attracting out of towners to Milville - This mean there would be many categories/type of people are coming to town.

Option A states "A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville" - A great many but to a specific category and we don't know how much this category have counted anyway

While Option B states - "Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town."
Means people from same town ( largely) are going for the activity
now coming to MB spokesperson argument - He/She says town is collecting money from users of the activity/recreation things and this collection is financial benefit, now if town people are the users so this will beat the argument ( town is not getting extra money, but it is inter-circulation of money)

So It looks Option B is better counter to business spokersponerson's argument

Please rectify above reasoning

[RonPurewal]

Option A states "A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville" - A great many but to a specific category and we don't know how much this category have counted anyway

the judgment in red is incorrect.

"a great many" is very clearly intended to indicate that this category contains enough people to have a substantial economic impact.

[RonPurewal]

While Option B states - "Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town."
Means people from same town ( largely) are going for the activity
now coming to MB spokesperson argument - He/She says town is collecting money from users of the activity/recreation things and this collection is financial benefit, now if town people are the users so this will beat the argument ( town is not getting extra money, but it is inter-circulation of money)

"Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents" is a stated fact.

a fact is a fact; the stated answer choice does nothing to counter it. (in GMAT CR, statements given as facts are NEVER contradicted.)

so, this answer choice just means "In addition to all the out-of-town people we already mentioned, there are some locals, too."
no impact on the fact that there are lots of out-of-towners.

[Navneet]

Option A states "A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville" - A great many but to a specific category and we don't know how much this category have counted anyway

the judgment in red is incorrect.

"a great many" is very clearly intended to indicate that this category contains enough people to have a substantial economic impact.

Hi Ron
Sorry for unclear writing
I got your idea of "great many cross-country skiers" means great many.
but ,originally, I was intending that we do not know how much this category of "cross-country skiers" was counting for overall visitors.
For examples -
It may be possible that this category "cross-country skiers" may be 1% of total visitors then in that case it doesn't matter if many people of this category stopped coming

on the other hand it may also be possible that this category "cross-country skiers" count for more, say 90%, then in that case it Option A seems OK.
I hope I am making sense this time

I eliminated option A for above reasoning

( While I know, now, why option B is wrong from your above reply)
Please clarify as I am still not confident to select option A.
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

just remember that the wordings on this exam are NEVER "tricky", and that should clear up any such issue.

if a choice says "a great many", then the obvious intention is to signal that we're talking about a number of people that's significant.
common sense wins the game.

[RonPurewal]

also, it goes without saying that anything derived from a hypothetical that's completely random can be disregarded.

in other words, as soon as your reasoning hits "maybe", "might", "could", etc., STOP. anything beyond that point cannot be used as a basis for your reasoning.

[RonPurewal]

more on this:

just remember that the wordings on this exam are NEVER "tricky", and that should clear up any such issue.

if a choice says "a great many", then the obvious intention is to signal that we're talking about a number of people that's significant.
common sense wins the game.

if you find CR difficult, this may be why—you're actively trying to defend against "tricks" that will never happen.
analogy:
1/
imagine simply walking down a street.
2/
now, imagine walking down that same street again—but this time on guard against robbers or muggers who might theoretically jump out at you from anywhere.

think about how much more attention you could pay to what's actually on the street in case #1. (e.g., you'd be much more likely to step in a pile of dog waste in case #2 than in case #1.)
same thing for these problems. if you're constantly on guard for "tricky wordings" (which will NEVER, EVER happen), you'll have much less brainpower left with which to think about solving the actual problem.

[Navneet]

It is really an important advice
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

sure.