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

Redeem

Q6 1000 CR

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:56 am
Thanked: 13 times

Q6 1000 CR

by vivek.kapoor83 » Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:56 am
A law requiring companies to offer employees unpaid time off to care for their children will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses. Companies must be free to set their own employment policies without mandated parental-leave regulations.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion of the argument above?
(A) A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country.
(B) Many businesses in this country already offer employees some form of parental leave.
(C) Some of the countries with the most economically competitive businesses have strong parental-leave regulations.
(D) Only companies with one hundred or more employees would be subject to the proposed parental-leave law.
(E) In most polls, a majority of citizens say they favor passage of a parental-leave law.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:15 am
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:1 members

by anju » Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:14 am
C.

Stimulus is about parental-leave regulations and economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses so the only option that weakens the stimulus is C.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:22 am

by pkamoako » Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:27 am
It should be either C or B. However C is the stronger answer because it does argue that strong parental leave will not impede the economic competitiveness. B does not talk about the economy impact on the nation.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Tue May 26, 2009 3:16 pm
I was thinking B is a best bet since some employers are already offering such unpaid time offs. But to support this, I assumed that the economic competitiveness is fine already and the passage of unpaid time off regulations will not have an impact on the economic competitiveness.

Can someone clarify whether assuming something like this is not appropriate?
Last edited by crackgmat007 on Wed May 27, 2009 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
Location: San Francisco
Thanked: 14 times

by mbadrew » Tue May 26, 2009 3:46 pm
crackgmat007 wrote:I was thinking B is a best bet since some employers are already offering such unpaid time offs. But to support this, I assumed that the economic competitiveness is fine already and the passage of unpaid time off regulations will not have an impact on the economic competitiveness.

Can someone clarify whether assuming something like this is not appropriate?
Conclusion--companies should be free to create leave of abscence policies, and not be mandated by government regulations....because it can hurt the nations productivity

B--there's no logical comparison to weaken the arguement. Infact, this choices slightly strengthen the arguement.

C--weakens the arguement by providing a logical comparison.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Tue May 26, 2009 5:31 pm
IMO - C
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 9:40 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by caprion » Tue May 26, 2009 9:32 pm
I will go with C.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 7:45 pm
Answer is clearly C here.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1