I agree why A is the correct answer, but why is D wrong?
D. Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are
insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
If bankers are themselves not ready to lend money, what is the use of putting more money into saving accounts?
Is D wrong because it requires an assumption to be made that all business talked about in the argument have insufficient prospective earnings. I have learnt that options which require an assumption to be made are wrong.
Is that the only reason for D to be incorrect?
og cr 91
-
vishalchaudhury
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:27 am
- havok
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:51 pm
- Thanked: 24 times
- Followed by:7 members
- GMAT Score:750
Answer is (a). It says having more retirement savings means more borrowing. the premise of the statement says that it will offer better retirement saving incentives so people will save more so that small businesses will have more money to borrow - but if people who save more also borrow more, it will contradict the effect entirely.dextar wrote:Business are suffering because of lack of money available for development loans.Ot help businesses, the govt. plans to modify the income tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a large portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.
Whicb of the following most seriusly undermines the effectiveness of the govt. plan to increase the amount of moneyavailable for development loans for business?
A When level of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
B The increased tax revenue the govt. would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personla income taxes during the first year of its plan
Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirmentsavings
Bankers generally wil not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules
The modified tax structure wold give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.
oa is A. i thought A is strngthening the argument by saying that borrowings will increase?Pls explain
Why can't it be D? Another reason for the plan not to work is that even though more money is available it is not being lent because bankers don't want to. I'm aware that this choice introduces earnings (same as A introduced consumer borrowing). D answers the question, why else the plan would not work though. Thoughts?
- amit2k9
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:09 am
- Location: pune
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:3 members
clean A here.
For Understanding Sustainability,Green Businesses and Social Entrepreneurship visit -https://aamthoughts.blocked/
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)
The plan argues that the lack of money available for development loans (for businesses) can be solved by instituting a plan that would essentially pool together funds from consumers, which, in turn, can be available for businesses.bohdan01 wrote:Why can't it be D? Another reason for the plan not to work is that even though more money is available it is not being lent because bankers don't want to. I'm aware that this choice introduces earnings (same as A introduced consumer borrowing). D answers the question, why else the plan would not work though. Thoughts?
(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules
Choice (D) is a stretch for me because it's talking about businesses whose earnings are insufficient to pay for existing loans (keyword: repayment) while the argument is talking about development loans (can be inferred as new loans from the argument). This makes the choice irrelevant and out of scope.
Another way to look at this choice: Just because bankers do not lend to businesses who can't pay on existing loans (the businesses identified in choice D) does not mean that these businesses refer to those suffering from a lack of available development loans (the businesses identified in the argument).
-
georgepaul0071987
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:38 am
- Thanked: 2 times
I might actually disagree with TestLuv on this .Testluv wrote:Hi Ashish,mmslf75 wrote:C is undoubtedly wrong
Question is had there been MANY instead of SOME
Would the option C then too be wrong ? , after all, some and many are equivalent TECHNICALLY !?
You've asked me a very similar question before on another problem; my answer hasn't changed! True, MANY and SOME share technical definitions. But, remember, what is more important for the GMAT are the TYPICAL interpretations. And, typically, "many" is used to convey an appreciable proportion (either where the exact proportion is unknown or where it is known to be less than a half) while "some" is used to convey "at least one". So, by replacing "some" with "many", the meaning of the answer choice would certainly change....why don't you tell me, then, if C would then rank as a weakener!
Even if "some" was replaced with "many" , this option is still irrelevant to the discussion .
Just reading the last line , we get this statement "As more money is available is deposited in such accounts , more money becomes available to borrowers"
So any choice that says "more money will not be available " is irrelevant . You cannot question the premise .
Can any expert weigh in on this ?
- KapTeacherEli
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
- Thanked: 136 times
- Followed by:62 members
"Many" formally means the same as "some," but often has colloquial meaning of "more than some." But the GMAT will never hinge a question on this distinction.
And (C) is wrong regardless of terminology. Because tens of thousands is probably "many" people, and certainly "some" people, but it's a tenth of a percent of American consumers. Because (C) might well be telling us that 99.9% of people WILL increase their retirement savings, it is simply to vague and non-specific to possibly be a valid weakener.
Hope this helps!
And (C) is wrong regardless of terminology. Because tens of thousands is probably "many" people, and certainly "some" people, but it's a tenth of a percent of American consumers. Because (C) might well be telling us that 99.9% of people WILL increase their retirement savings, it is simply to vague and non-specific to possibly be a valid weakener.
Hope this helps!
- 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
I received a PM asking me to comment.georgepaul0071987 wrote:I might actually disagree with TestLuv on this .Testluv wrote:Hi Ashish,mmslf75 wrote:C is undoubtedly wrong
Question is had there been MANY instead of SOME
Would the option C then too be wrong ? , after all, some and many are equivalent TECHNICALLY !?
You've asked me a very similar question before on another problem; my answer hasn't changed! True, MANY and SOME share technical definitions. But, remember, what is more important for the GMAT are the TYPICAL interpretations. And, typically, "many" is used to convey an appreciable proportion (either where the exact proportion is unknown or where it is known to be less than a half) while "some" is used to convey "at least one". So, by replacing "some" with "many", the meaning of the answer choice would certainly change....why don't you tell me, then, if C would then rank as a weakener!
Even if "some" was replaced with "many" , this option is still irrelevant to the discussion .
Just reading the last line , we get this statement "As more money is available is deposited in such accounts , more money becomes available to borrowers"
So any choice that says "more money will not be available " is irrelevant . You cannot question the premise .
Can any expert weigh in on this ?
The correct answer must weaken an ASSUMPTION: something that is NOT directly stated in the passage but that must be true in order for the conclusion to be valid.
Since the passage above states directly that the government plans to modify the income tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a large portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, we should be VERY skeptical of any answer choice that tries to refute this portion of the argument.
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
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
i received a private message about this post.
basically, the presence of a certain number of people/things that don't follow a trend -- even a sizable number -- doesn't do much to debunk the idea of the trend itself.
for instance:
when the economy gets worse, more people default on credit-card debt.
if i say something like "some/many people manage to keep paying their credit-card bills even when the economy gets terrible", i am not weakening this statement. in fact, even if i say "most", that still doesn't defeat the statement -- because the remaining people could still account for the trend.
a trend can still be a trend, even with (a large number of) exceptions.
the statement you're quoting here isn't a fact. it is based on the author's hypothetical prediction that more money will be available in the first place. if you can undercut that idea, then this claim becomes questionable.
"irrelevant" isn't the right word. the problem is that replacing "some" with "many" still leaves a statement that's too weak to accomplish anything.georgepaul0071987 wrote:Even if "some" was replaced with "many" , this option is still irrelevant to the discussion .
basically, the presence of a certain number of people/things that don't follow a trend -- even a sizable number -- doesn't do much to debunk the idea of the trend itself.
for instance:
when the economy gets worse, more people default on credit-card debt.
if i say something like "some/many people manage to keep paying their credit-card bills even when the economy gets terrible", i am not weakening this statement. in fact, even if i say "most", that still doesn't defeat the statement -- because the remaining people could still account for the trend.
a trend can still be a trend, even with (a large number of) exceptions.
you can't question premises that are stated as facts. on the other hand, you can question claims all you want. (in fact, questioning the author's claims -- not the facts -- is the entire basis of strengthen/weaken problems!)Just reading the last line , we get this statement "As more money is available is deposited in such accounts , more money becomes available to borrowers"
So any choice that says "more money will not be available " is irrelevant . You cannot question the premise .
the statement you're quoting here isn't a fact. it is based on the author's hypothetical prediction that more money will be available in the first place. if you can undercut that idea, then this claim becomes questionable.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
-
tanviet
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
- Thanked: 18 times
- Followed by:2 members
thank you Ron,lunarpower wrote:correct.dextar wrote:so u mean to say that consumer borrowing is same as peronsonal borrowing and not business borrowing. I think the key is to distinguish between consumer and business borrowing
if you make a diagram (of whatever type) of this passage, you'll find that it progresses from a premise stating that money will be available in the retirement funds (for some type of borrowers) to a conclusion stating that this money will be available to business borrowers.
this is a logical leap: the argument progresses from 'available to borrowers in general' to 'available to business borrowers in particular'.
this leap relies fundamentally on an assumption that other, competing borrowers will not elbow the business borrowers out of the market. if choice (a) is true, then that assumption is undermined.
--
remember that, on almost all 'weaken the conclusion' problems, this is what you are trying to do: you're trying to undermine one of the assumptions behind the argument. therefore, these problems are basically 'find the assumption' problems with one extra step at the end (i.e., find a statement that contradicts that assumption).
I remember that in a previous posting, you said that
for weakening problem we should identify an assumption before going to answer choices. after identify an assumption we look for an answer choice which invalidate an assumption.
I totally agree with you. identifying any assumption before going to answer choices is helpful .
However, I have problem. This problem happen in the case of Assumption question, not weakening question. But because this problem relates to prethinking an assumption, I want to discuss here.
in case of assumption question, the correct answer can be an assumption bridging the gap between evidence and conclusion or can be an assumption protecting the argument from an weakener. Some person call supporter assumption and defender assumption. But igrore the names, we discuss content of the problem.
the matter for me is that WE CAN ONLY PRETHINK "BRIGDING THE GAP" ASSUMPTION". we can not prethink assumption defending the conclusion from a weakner. Is that right? I am rather sure of this.
when we go to answer choices, we can not find a match between what we prethink and what is in the answer choice if the correct answer choices is an defending assumption. In this situation, we have to do the 3rd step, using negation test to find the defending assumption.
even this situation happen to us, prethink a bridging assumption is helpful because this step helps us better understand the argument
there is another case in which the assumption we prethink dose not cocincide with the assumption of the correct answer choice. In this case, though both assumption we prethink and assumption in the correct answer choice are the bridging assumptions, they are different simply because one argument can have many assumptions. However, prethinking a bridging assumption helps us to realize another bridging assumption among many answer choices.
is my thinking correct? pls, comment/advise, Ron.
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
well, no.duongthang wrote:the matter for me is that WE CAN ONLY PRETHINK "BRIGDING THE GAP" ASSUMPTION". we can not prethink assumption defending the conclusion from a weakner. Is that right? I am rather sure of this.
in a lot of cases, it will definitely be possible to "prethink" assumptions that defeat possible objections. it really just depends on whether those possible objections are obvious enough.
for instance:
Reggie is singing "Gangnam Style", a song whose lyrics are in Korean. Therefore, Reggie must speak Korean.
in the case of this argument, one possible objection is pretty obvious: "what if reggie just memorized the words, without understanding the actual language?" so, from this possible objection, that we need the assumption that reggie did not just memorize the words without understanding the actual language.
again, you shouldn't spend an inordinate amount of time trying to do this. however, it's very possible that there could be a rather obvious objection to the argument, in which case "prethinking" this sort of assumption isn't very hard.
--
finally, you may not have thought about this, but -- if your statement here were true, it would actually be impossible for gmac, or anyone else, to write this kind of question in the first place!
after all, in order to write an assumption question, you have to be able to come up with the assumption on your own (since answer choices don't fall from the sky).
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
the real question here isn't "how can you eliminate this choice?"teal wrote:Hello Ron,
Can you please also explain why choice D does not make sense? I could not eliminate it.
instead, the real question is "how did *you* think it was relevant?"
in brief -- choice (d) has nothing to do with the argumnt, because it is a statement about the availability of money to "businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules". the passage says nothing at all about such businesses, nor does it mention any other, closely related idea.
the argument says only that there is a shortage of money available for businesses in general.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron















