Hi Deepti,

back posting after a long time ?

Back to the question- you are making an additional assumption that European market will create demand for USA products.

Remember- In strengthen, weaken, resolve, assumption and evaluate questions- we are allowed to bring in outside info, but this info should not be laden with several additional(self made) assumptions. Use only the info given in the answer choice to connect missing links in the argument.


Additionally as I mentioned before(read previous post) - whats happening within Europe will not give us an answer to what will happen in USA

If I modify D a little bit then it MAY become a slightly heavier contender (and your reasoning might be applicable to this) .


d) European governments are currently undertaking initiatives to stimulate the use of solar power within Europe and current European solar power companies cannot fulfill this demand.

Frankenstein wrote:

sandy217 wrote:ewww.... Why E is a trap here. Atleast when it is mentioned as trap,it should be convincing enough to be a trap.Any takers Why E is a trap.

I have no reason to eliminate C though.

Hi,
If you picked C, then it is great. No need to worry about trap. E is trap for the reason some of the posters here felt that was the answer and the rationale behind it has been posted already. Btw, E is trap only for some, need not be to all. If it were convincing enough for all it would be OA, not trap.

Ok Clear misunderstanding.((i need to work on style question in SC ))

I want to know how can E be a trap but not answer.
I am down to E and C. E appeared so convincing that i eliminated C even though i could not find a solid reason to do so.

e>current market is bad does not guarantee that it will improve later

if u think this explains why E is a trap, am not convinced. Because argument clearly states

If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States

Hi,
I still fail to understand your take on this question.

I want to know how can E be a trap but not answer.
I am down to E and C. E appeared so convincing that i eliminated C even though i could not find a solid reason to do so.

Wrong answer is more convincing than OA means you agree that E is trap.

if u think this explains why E is a trap, am not convinced. Because argument clearly states

No, that is the reason he stated for eliminating E, not proving E as trap. Some of the posters who opted for E has mentioned their reasons for considering E. I guess there is logical gap between what you think about this and what I understand from your post. So, if this is not something you are looking for, make your question simple in the next post so that we can discuss.

No, that is the reason he stated for eliminating E, not proving E as trap. Some of the posters who opted for E has mentioned their reasons for considering E. I guess there is logical gap between what you think about this and what I understand from your post. So, if this is not something you are looking for, make your question simple in the next post so that we can discuss.

Hmmm.... Sorry for the confusion. I am not ok with eliminating E with the reason stated by bblast.
Thats the gist of it.What makes E wrong answer.

Except for the reason stated by Bblast i dont find any reasons that eliminate answer choice E.
In your previous post u mentioned

This is a GMAT Prep question and the OA is C. E is a trap. I think bblast has already explained.

From the above i can deduce, bblast already explained y E is a trap answer.

But No thats not convincing.So i call for takers who can explain y E is WRONG (chuck trap)

Hi,
Okay great! Now I get your point. Did you follow the explanation on MGMAT forums for this? It is a systematic approach. If you haven't, please refer this -

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/uni ... t2412.html

Frankenstein makes some great posts and Bblast and others as well. No need for experts!

Let me say a few things about choice E. Choice E does not give a reason why the U.S. producers would still maintain production. The stimulus says that U.S. Manufacturers will probably lose most of the European market to those European manufacturers. So why not lose the U.S. market as well? If the European manufacturers can beat the U.S. producers out in Europe then probably they can in the U.S.

So even if as choice E states the U.S. market is quite limited and even if, as the stimulus says, this will increase this does not guarantee a place for the U.S. producers.

Only C gives us a reason why the U.S. producers will still have significant production levels - because they will have the advantage in a U.S. market that the stimulus says will be growing.

E is actually pretty close to irrelevant. It does not matter if the U.S. market is small now or not the stimulus says "If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States" so we are limited to discussing the circumstance of the U.S. market growing. So we already know from the stimulus that we are discussing the scenario where the U.S. market grows. But what about the U.S. producers? Do they get some of this market? Choice C says yes.

bblast wrote:Hi Deepti,

back posting after a long time ?

Back to the question- you are making an additional assumption that European market will create demand for USA products.

Remember- In strengthen, weaken, resolve, assumption and evaluate questions- we are allowed to bring in outside info, but this info should not be laden with several additional(self made) assumptions. Use only the info given in the answer choice to connect missing links in the argument.


Additionally as I mentioned before(read previous post) - whats happening within Europe will not give us an answer to what will happen in USA

If I modify D a little bit then it MAY become a slightly heavier contender (and your reasoning might be applicable to this) .


d) European governments are currently undertaking initiatives to stimulate the use of solar power within Europe and current European solar power companies cannot fulfill this demand.

Yep , back after a really long time . I get the point now , but I am finding it hard to think beyond whats required .

I made your thanked count 50

I would also like to know why E is incorrect

Please see my explanation above...

do you still have a question about E? If so, please ask...

I interpreted choice E as that, the U.S market is small (nascent) and coupled with the funding initiatives of the government; it would help the U.S. manufacturers to seize the domestic market

Right, but even if it is small and even if it does grow there is no indication that the U.S. manufacturers will have a share of this market. If they are losing the European market, why should they not lose the U.S. market, too?

Basically we are looking for a reason why the U.S. producers will still have a share of the market and E only gives us another fact - the U.S. market is small - so this will not really ever be a reason for the producers to have a share of the market.

What if choice E had said the U.S. market is huge? Would that weaken? No. The stimulus already says that the market is going to grow - at least hypothetically - so we are dealing with a growing U.S. market. If it starts from small or from large it does not matter, what matters is does the U.S. get a share of the market??