CR:oil companies have been called

[sonu_gmat]

Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate citizens because they have opposed government action to limit global warming by undermining scientific research that characterizes the issue as severe. However, these same oil companies have also invested millions of dollars in scientific research to address the long term effects of climate change.

Which of the following best explains the apparent discrepancy in the situation described above?
A)The oil companies only recently began investing in scientific research to address climate change issues.
B)The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.
C)The government action opposed by the oil companies would negatively impact their profits.
D)The scientific research that characterizes global warming as a severe problem has not been definitively proven.
E)The oil companies don't believe that any scientific research related to climate change will ultimately serve their interests.

OA B
As per explanation provided B suggests that govt's action might have negative impact on oil companies and C does not give reasons why oil companies will invest in research.

My Q is while B can assume the above mentioned why C can not assume that oil companies investment will not have any negative impact in their profits.

[esledge]

This question could be rephrased as "Why do some companies spend money to research climate change, even though they dispute research that characterizes the issue as severe?"

There are many possible answers, I think. Just a few possibilities:
(1) The companies agree there is a problem, but disagree with the existing research on the severity of the problem.
(2) The companies agree there is a problem, but disagree with the methods used in the existing research.
(3) The companies agree there is a problem, but want to pursue their own solution and to prevent government action for some reason.

B)The research dollars invested by the oil companies are specifically earmarked for developing practical technologies that might be used to combat global warming.
C)The government action opposed by the oil companies would negatively impact their profits.

OA B
As per explanation provided B suggests that govt's action might have negative impact on oil companies and C does not give reasons why oil companies will invest in research.

My Q is while B can assume the above mentioned why C can not assume that oil companies investment will not have any negative impact in their profits.

(B) gives a practical reason the companies might want to do the research. It answers the question "why do they invest...?"

(C) only explains why the oil companies would be against government action, so it only explains one of their actions. There's still the question "Why not just do nothing?" You cannot "assume" anything else with this statement. The GMAT is looking for an answer that explains the discrepency by itself.

I think (B) communicates the "the companies agree there is a problem, but..." part of all the possible answers above.

(C) sounds a little like possible answer (3) above, but only addresses the reason the companies might want to prevent government action. It fails to explain the investment at all, because it fails to explain whether the companies agree there is a problem.

[facethin]

I removed the two recently added companies, which are not oil producing companies, but are gas station chains. If the consensus is that this list should include marketers, someone can add them back, but my perception has been that this is a list of petroleum producing companies.






oil companies

[jnelson0612]

Thank you Emily for the great explanation.