Govt. Regulation and American Business

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:51 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

Govt. Regulation and American Business

by galaxian » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:19 am
Critics insist that government regulation of business
has made it more difficult for American businesses to
operate profitably and has destroyed their ability to
compete with foreign producers of consumer goods.
This argument is not compelling. Government regulation
of business was never as active in this nation as
it was between the years 1975 and 1985, and in
those years the average net worth of American
families increased more than it had in any previous
decade.
The author's argument would be most seriously
weakened if it were true that

1. Eighty percent of all businesses started during
the decade 1975-1985 lost money in their
first year of operation.

2. More businesses declared bankruptcy during
the period 1975-1985 than in any previous
decade.

3. During the decade 1975-1985, America
imported more consumer goods than it
exported.

4. The increase in net worth of average American
families during the years 1975-1985 was
largely due to an increase in the value of
residential homes.

5. The average interest rate charged on business
and home mortgage loans was higher during
the decade 1975-1985 than it had been in
any previous decade.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: India
Thanked: 375 times
Followed by:53 members

by Frankenstein » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:36 am
Hi,
D gives an alternate cause for increase in net worth. So, it weakens
Hence, D
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:7 members

by Ozlemg » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:13 am
my answer is D

Author's argument is business was active btw years 1975-1985 and average net worth increased during those periods!

Answer D seriously weakens his argument above. increase in the averag enet worth was due to increase in the value of
residential homes
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:46 pm
This is a difficult question because the author is basing an argument relative to competition and business profitability on consumer net worth. While these are related, the author does not make that case clearly. Nevertheless, since it is his only real evidence, we have to deal with it. By showing that his support (ncreased net worth) was caused by something unrelated to regulation (housing values), we take away his evidence and his argument fails.
Tani Wolff

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:47 pm
The Author in this twisting the Critics argument while presenting his/her views.

Critics are focusing on : How gov. regulation has decreased the profitability of American biz ?
Author: How gov. regulation has increased the "net worth" of American families ?

Author here making a direct assumption between "net worth of American families is a direct measure of profitability of American biz". or "more profitable the biz, more is the net worth of families"


Option D shows an alternative way of how the net worth might have increased.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 7:52 pm
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by Sanjay2706 » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:55 pm
Option D weakens the argument here, as the increase in the value of homes has accounted for the increase in net worth of average american families.
Hope this helps.