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

Redeem

Military applications

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

Military applications

by crackgmat007 » Fri May 22, 2009 7:56 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.

IMO - B but OA is - E pls explain
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Fri May 22, 2009 9:47 pm
A. out of scope. what would happen if the govt. did not regulate is not important

B. negate: even if the cost to the small cos. were same as the cost to the big cos. the small cos. may still not have been able to afford the conversion-would have gone out of business- doesnt affect the argument

C. out of scope

D. whether assembly of products is complex is out of scope

E. negate: some of the small companies currently manufactures the products that would match the specifications of the govt. if the regulations come in effect=>they wouldnt need to convert the product line=>they would remain in business=>the argument falls apart.
E is therefore necessary for the argument and is the assumption
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by sanp_l » Fri May 22, 2009 10:54 pm
The passage concludes that large companies would survive and small companies won't. we are supposed to find an assumption that supports this conclusion.

Whether the large ones would go out of business if the market isn't regulated can't be an assumption on which we can draw the above conclusion. Hence he answer can't be option A.

Relatice cost to small companies or large is of no use as an assumption. It is stated that small ones won't be able to afford it. Whether it is greater or smaller than the large ones is of no use. Hence not option B.

C can easily be ruled out.

D cant be as assuming the complexity is out of context.

Changing the lines of production certainly do indicate that it is already assumed that the present lines arent as per the to-be-imposed standards and specifications.
Hence the answer is E.
Sandy
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 7:48 pm
My intuition whispers that it is E
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1