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

Redeem

How to approach this Evaluate?Plzz explain

Expert replies
by src_saurav » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:55 pm
Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler
systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs
will be lost and pro�ts diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country's economy.
Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and pro�ts will be gained as
well as lost.
Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith's argument
(C) suggesting that Keith's argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith's
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Jim@StratusPrep » Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:53 am
She is offering a counter argument.

A) It is not that his argument is not based on relevant information, he just left out some information
B) She doesn't challenge his evidence, but rather the lack of inclusion of a particular point
C) Correct - She suggest that the economy will not suffer because someone else will earn that revenue.
D) She disagrees with his conclusion
E) She disagrees with his conclusion
GMAT Answers provides a world class adaptive learning platform.
-- Push button course navigation to simplify planning
-- Daily assignments to fit your exam timeline
-- Organized review that is tailored based on your abiility
-- 1,000s of unique GMAT questions
-- 100s of handwritten 'digital flip books' for OG questions
-- 100% Free Trial and less than $20 per month after.
-- Free GMAT Quantitative Review

Image
Join the discussion