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 argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
I think Keith here is being pessimistic about the consequence because he thinks that it is a loss for the entertainment industry as well as loss of the jobs.
Therefore, Laura agrees to his conclusion but looks at the flip side of it.
Shouldn't the OA be E ?
Help appreciated.
Thanks in advance
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
OG-12 CR Q-86 Compliance with new government
This topic has expert replies
-
spartacus1412
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:28 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:1 members
Hi ankit,
I suppose here laura does not completely agree with Keith's conclusion.
keith concludes that there will be major losses while Laura cites there will be a mix of both profit and loss.
Hence, E doesn't represent Laura's response.
OptionA can be dicarded at hand as Laura doesnot find Keith's argument as irrelevant.
Option B - she did not challenge keith's argument but presented an alternate view of the consequences.
option C- Yes truely she tells keith that he has missed/ overlooked a mitigating consequence that there will also be profit for some.----lets keep this option for now.
Option D- discarded she did not reinforce Keiths conclusion but modified it appending to it parts that Keith had overlooked.
Hence, Option C it should be.
Hope it Helps!:)
I suppose here laura does not completely agree with Keith's conclusion.
keith concludes that there will be major losses while Laura cites there will be a mix of both profit and loss.
Hence, E doesn't represent Laura's response.
OptionA can be dicarded at hand as Laura doesnot find Keith's argument as irrelevant.
Option B - she did not challenge keith's argument but presented an alternate view of the consequences.
option C- Yes truely she tells keith that he has missed/ overlooked a mitigating consequence that there will also be profit for some.----lets keep this option for now.
Option D- discarded she did not reinforce Keiths conclusion but modified it appending to it parts that Keith had overlooked.
Hence, Option C it should be.
Hope it Helps!:)
Its do or die this time!
Practise, practise and practise.
Practise, practise and practise.
-
shantanu86
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:57 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:1 members
Let's break up the Keith's argument first-ankit0411 wrote: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 argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
I think Keith here is being pessimistic about the consequence because he thinks that it is a loss for the entertainment industry as well as loss of the jobs.
Therefore, Laura agrees to his conclusion but looks at the flip side of it.
Shouldn't the OA be E ?
Help appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Conclusion-
New government regulations will harm the country's economy.
Reason-
Jobs will be lost and profits diminish because of 25B incurred annually.
Laura's remark-
25B spent will create new jobs and hence jobs are gained and lost.
From this breakup its clear that Laura is trying to reject Keith's conclusion by challenging the credentials of his reasoning. Therefore option is the correct one.
If you feel like it, hit thanks 
-
[email protected]
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 934
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
- Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
- Thanked: 63 times
- Followed by:14 members
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 argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
OA should be C and not E. Yes both the options are quiet confusing, but C is the winner.
ankit0411 see the options C and E carefully,
supposingly is say that the chimneys releasing the pollutants are increasing and hence increasing the pollution levels. And let us say that the other person says that the same thing is a sign that our industries are working harder and hence making our economy stronger.
So only one conclusion is interpreted one as positive and one as negative...
Whereas what is happening in the option C is that the author or Laura is accepting the argument's conclusion but going one step ahead not saying the positive.
That is the jobs being lost in one industry is one aspect but because of some of the reasons, there are jobs being gained in some other industry.
So Keith's conclusion acting as a premise for Laura's conclusion.
Whereas in option E the problem is as follows: One conclusion and two different interpretations.\
Eg: the increase in pollutants sign of increase in pollution and the same reason sign of increase in the economy.
Also one more sign of rejecting the option E is that: Option E says that Laura is deriving something optimistic rather than pessimistic. So if she is accepting it then she would never negate or not accept the pessimistic conclusion.
Quiet closer and very less difference but can be identifiable...
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 argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
OA should be C and not E. Yes both the options are quiet confusing, but C is the winner.
ankit0411 see the options C and E carefully,
supposingly is say that the chimneys releasing the pollutants are increasing and hence increasing the pollution levels. And let us say that the other person says that the same thing is a sign that our industries are working harder and hence making our economy stronger.
So only one conclusion is interpreted one as positive and one as negative...
Whereas what is happening in the option C is that the author or Laura is accepting the argument's conclusion but going one step ahead not saying the positive.
That is the jobs being lost in one industry is one aspect but because of some of the reasons, there are jobs being gained in some other industry.
So Keith's conclusion acting as a premise for Laura's conclusion.
Whereas in option E the problem is as follows: One conclusion and two different interpretations.\
Eg: the increase in pollutants sign of increase in pollution and the same reason sign of increase in the economy.
Also one more sign of rejecting the option E is that: Option E says that Laura is deriving something optimistic rather than pessimistic. So if she is accepting it then she would never negate or not accept the pessimistic conclusion.
Quiet closer and very less difference but can be identifiable...
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT
LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!
Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!
Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Laura offers additional evidence -- that the $25 billion spent by the entertainment industry will be REVENUE FOR OTHERS -- in order to WEAKEN Keith's conclusion that the overall economy will be hurt by the new regulations.ankit0411 wrote: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 argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
ID-THE-REASONING questions are a MATCH GAME.
MATCH EACH ANSWER CHOICE back to Laura's argument.
Eliminate any answer that DOESN'T MATCH.
If an answer choice is only 1/2 right, it is ALL WRONG.
We must be able to justify EVERY WORD in the answer choice.
(A) demonstrating that Keith's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
Laura does not claim that Keith's evidence is irrelevant.
Eliminate A.
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith's argument.
Laura does not claim that Keith's evidence is implausible.
Eliminate B.
(C) suggesting that Keith's argument overlooks a mitigating consequence.
Yes. Laura claims that Keith's argument OVERLOOKS that the $25 billion spent by the entertainment industry will be revenue for others -- a MITIGATING CONSEQUENCE of the new regulations.
Hold onto C.
(D) reinforcing Keith's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites.
Laura does not reinforce Keith's conclusion; she attempts to WEAKEN it.
Eliminate D.
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith's argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
Laura does not agree with Keith's conclusion; she attempts to WEAKEN it.
Eliminate E.
The correct answer is C.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
Crystal W
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
Thanks for your clear explanation. I have two quick questions. First, can you explain what's the meaning of "Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost"? I am confused about "as well as lost". Second, in choice C, what's the meanig of "mitigating consequence"? Is that means Keith's conclusion is too serious?GMATGuruNY wrote:Laura offers additional evidence -- that the $25 billion spent by the entertainment industry will be REVENUE FOR OTHERS -- in order to WEAKEN Keith's conclusion that the overall economy will be hurt by the new regulations.ankit0411 wrote: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 argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
ID-THE-REASONING questions are a MATCH GAME.
MATCH EACH ANSWER CHOICE back to Laura's argument.
Eliminate any answer that DOESN'T MATCH.
If an answer choice is only 1/2 right, it is ALL WRONG.
We must be able to justify EVERY WORD in the answer choice.
(A) demonstrating that Keith's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
Laura does not claim that Keith's evidence is irrelevant.
Eliminate A.
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith's argument.
Laura does not claim that Keith's evidence is implausible.
Eliminate B.
(C) suggesting that Keith's argument overlooks a mitigating consequence.
Yes. Laura claims that Keith's argument OVERLOOKS that the $25 billion spent by the entertainment industry will be revenue for others -- a MITIGATING CONSEQUENCE of the new regulations.
Hold onto C.
(D) reinforcing Keith's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites.
Laura does not reinforce Keith's conclusion; she attempts to WEAKEN it.
Eliminate D.
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith's argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.
Laura does not agree with Keith's conclusion; she attempts to WEAKEN it.
Eliminate E.
The correct answer is C.
Thanks in advance!
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Crystal W wrote:GMATGuruNY wrote:ankit0411 wrote: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 argument but construing that conclusion as
grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism.The phrase gained as well as lost implies the following:First, can you explain what's the meaning of "Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost"? I am confused about "as well as lost".
While some jobs will be LOST, other jobs will be CREATED, with the result that the overall employment rate will not change much.
While some companies will LOSE profits, others will INCREASE profits, with the result that the overall amount of profit will not change much.
To mitigate X is to reduce the harmful effects of X.Second, in choice C, what's the meanig of "mitigating consequence"? Is that means Keith's conclusion is too serious?
Thanks in advance!
A mitigating consequence of the regulations is an outcome that reduces the harmful effects of the regulations.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
