BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Three large companies and seven small

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

Three large companies and seven small

by maihuna » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:55 pm
Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications. If the government regulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturing specifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere. In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the author's argument relies?

A. None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.
B. It would cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a new set of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the production lines of the large companies.
C. Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.
D. Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.
E. None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:55 pm
The correct answer is choice E.

Denial test: if some of the small companies (DO) already have the proper specifications, then government regulation will NOT spell doom for them. So, when we deny (ie, remove) choice E, the author's argument falls apart. Thus, the author's argument relies on choice E.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:59 pm
Testluv wrote:The correct answer is choice E.

Denial test: if some of the small companies (DO) already have the proper specifications, then government regulation will NOT spell doom for them. So, when we deny (ie, remove) choice E, the author's argument falls apart. Thus, the author's argument relies on choice E.
Good CR bro!!

E seems to fit the bill
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:09 am
Testluv wrote:The correct answer is choice E.

Denial test: if some of the small companies (DO) already have the proper specifications, then government regulation will NOT spell doom for them. So, when we deny (ie, remove) choice E, the author's argument falls apart. Thus, the author's argument relies on choice E.


Why not B
B seems to be a good contender out here,
Since the argument explicitly mentions "AFFORD" B talks about MONEY

So B should also be a contender

Besdies, denial test on B...
""It would NOT cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a/.. "

Argument falls apart..

Or is it that

AFFORD implies other things besides money as well ??
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:28 pm
The argument does not depend on the idea that it costs more for the small companies. It can cost the same for both the small and large companies; but the smaller companies may not be as able to absorb these costs. Pay attention to the conclusion; it is about small companies necessarily collapsing in the wake of these regulations. That argument definitely depends on choice E.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:51 am
Testluv wrote:The argument does not depend on the idea that it costs more for the small companies. It can cost the same for both the small and large companies; but the smaller companies may not be as able to absorb these costs. Pay attention to the conclusion; it is about small companies necessarily collapsing in the wake of these regulations. That argument definitely depends on choice E.
oh get the point now...

What abt AFFORD ?

Here afford could mean not only money but also other aspects right ??
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:00 am
No. In this argument, "afford" is definitely just being limited to costs. Again, the costs for converting might be the same; but the small companies may not be able to afford this cost of converting. He is assuming that the small companies will have to convert--that they don't already align with the new regulations--because if they are already aligned with the new regulations, they will not have to convert (ie, they are already converted!). If they are already converted, then the new regulations will not cause the small companies to collapse.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sat May 28, 2011 5:04 am
I agree with OA but How to drop Op A here....if we negate the Op A...we get that the 3 large companies can go out of business, even if the gov. specs. are not implied.

While the conclusion is saying that After specs are applied only those 3 major companies will run
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:34 am
Location: India
Thanked: 310 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:750

by cans » Sat May 28, 2011 5:40 am
I agree with OA but How to drop Op A here....if we negate the Op A...we get that the 3 large companies can go out of business, even if the gov. specs. are not implied.

While the conclusion is saying that After specs are applied only those 3 major companies will run

option A - None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.
Author just says that if manufacturing is not regulated, the three large companies will remain in business.
He doesn't comment on what will happen if manufacturing is regulated. And the argument is about what will happen if industry is regulated. Thus you can drop A.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sat May 28, 2011 6:54 am
cans wrote:
I agree with OA but How to drop Op A here....if we negate the Op A...we get that the 3 large companies can go out of business, even if the gov. specs. are not implied.

While the conclusion is saying that After specs are applied only those 3 major companies will run

option A - None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.
Author just says that if manufacturing is not regulated, the three large companies will remain in business.
He doesn't comment on what will happen if manufacturing is regulated. And the argument is about what will happen if industry is regulated. Thus you can drop A.
Thanks...!!!!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:640

by sachindia » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:21 am
Folks,
What is wrong with C?
It seems right as well.
Regards,
Sach
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:49 pm
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Thanked: 132 times
Followed by:93 members
GMAT Score:750

by brianlange77 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:26 pm
sachindia wrote:Folks,
What is wrong with C?
It seems right as well.
The issue with "c" here is that the argument itself talks about "If" the government regulates.... because of that the argument is not assuming that they do regulate, but rather introduces the possibilities of what would happen if it was regulated. Because of that, the argument does not assume that regulation is a given.

Thoughts?

-brian
_________________
Brian Lange
Instructor, Manhattan GMAT
Expert Contributor to Beat The GMAT

Merci, Danke, Grazie, Gracias -- Whichever way you say it, if you found my post helpful, please click on the 'thank' icon in the top right corner of this post.

And I encourage you to click on 'follow' to track all my posts -- all the cool kids are doing it! :-)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:640

by sachindia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:39 pm
thanks brian.. i get it now :)
Regards,
Sach
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1