• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to $200 Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Magoosh Study with Magoosh GMAT prep Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Trial & Practice Exam BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Practice Test & Review How would you score if you took the GMAT Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Get 300+ Practice Questions 25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 5-Day Free Trial 5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 5 Day FREE Trial Study Smarter, Not Harder Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Reach higher with Artificial Intelligence. Guaranteed Now free for 30 days Available with Beat the GMAT members only code OG12 Question 88 Reasoning tagged by: This topic has 1 expert reply and 4 member replies GMATMadeEasy Legendary Member Joined 30 Nov 2009 Posted: 768 messages Followed by: 7 members Upvotes: 21 OG12 Question 88 Reasoning Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:32 am Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers. Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses? (A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly. (B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan. (C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings. (D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules. (E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings. OA is A; I have a question from Answer choice D. If Bankers do not continue to lend money to business whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules , wouldn't it be a hinderance to effectiveness of the plan. OG explanation says: The plan would increase the money available specifically for development loans, not existing loans. Where does the question distinguish whether it talks about existing loans or new loans and where does it says that the existing loan are not development loans ? The evidence that 'Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans' does not help to answer the any of the above question. However, I am absolutely fine with the right answer choice and understand that that clearly attacks the line of reasoning on which the argument is based. But have issues understanding D and to understand on what basis it should be removed. GMATMadeEasy Legendary Member Joined 30 Nov 2009 Posted: 768 messages Followed by: 7 members Upvotes: 21 Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:47 pm @Mitch: Quote: The conclusion is not about whether any particular business will be able to qualify for a loan. The conclusion is only about whether there will be money available for businesses to borrow. Not quite the same thing. Thanks a lot for pitching in. I re-read the question and realized in question stem , the scope is limited to available of money for loan. Trying to make CR a pleasure and my strong point but need to get it integrated a bit more to avoid such errors as overlooking a few things. Part of question stem: The effectiveness of the government's plan is to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses Conclusion is the KING, and GMAT takers are simple creatures who have to abide by KING'S laws GMAT/MBA Expert GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor Joined 25 May 2010 Posted: 14031 messages Followed by: 1813 members Upvotes: 13060 GMAT Score: 790 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:20 pm GMATMadeEasy wrote: Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers. Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses? (A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly. (B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan. (C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings. (D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules. (E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings. OA is A; I have a question from Answer choice D. If Bankers do not continue to lend money to business whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules , wouldn't it be a hinderance to effectiveness of the plan. OG explanation says: The plan would increase the money available specifically for development loans, not existing loans. Where does the question distinguish whether it talks about existing loans or new loans and where does it says that the existing loan are not development loans ? The evidence that 'Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans' does not help to answer the any of the above question. However, I am absolutely fine with the right answer choice and understand that that clearly attacks the line of reasoning on which the argument is based. But have issues understanding D and to understand on what basis it should be removed. Don't overthink arguments. Learn to recognize the common flaws and assumptions and understand how the GMAT tends to weaken and strengthen each type. Premise: The plan will induce individuals to put more money into their retirement accounts, making more funds available for borrowers. Conclusion: There will be an increase in the amount of money available for businesses. This argument exhibits a shift in scope and in language. The premise is about X (borrowers). The conclusion is about Y (businesses). The argument assumes that X and Y are connected. But borrowers and businesses are not the same thing. The correct answer will break the connection between X and Y. It will show that the money available for borrowers will not necessarily be available for businesses. Answer choice A does just what we need: If the money put into retirement accounts leads to a corresponding increase in borrowing by consumers, then the money in the retirement accounts will not be available for businesses. The correct answer is A. Answer choice D is outside the scope and does not weaken the conclusion. The conclusion is not about whether any particular business will be able to qualify for a loan. The conclusion is only about whether there will be money available for businesses to borrow. Not quite the same thing. Even if some businesses don't qualify, the money would still be available for businesses that do. Thus, the conclusion would remain valid. _________________ Mitch Hunt GMAT Private Tutor GMATGuruNY@gmail.com If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon. Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance. For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com. Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now. fitzgerald23 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Joined 08 Mar 2010 Posted: 219 messages Followed by: 5 members Upvotes: 62 GMAT Score: 750 Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:54 am I dont like that explanation either. The real key to eliminating D lies in the passage. The conclusion is not about giving businesses more loans, it is about increasing the funds at a banks disposal. D does not cast doubt over the available funding. It casts doubt over what the bankers will do with the money, but that is a separate argument. It would still be available, the business just has to show sufficient profit making ability to get it. A is the only choice that casts doubt on the availability of money. If the borrower saves$100 to aviod taxes, but in turn borrows \$100 to have the money to spend now then there will be no change in the amount of money available for the bank to loan out.

Joined
30 Nov 2009
Posted:
768 messages
Followed by:
7 members
21
Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:41 am
@fitzgerald23
Quote:
The conclusion is not about giving businesses more loans, it is about increasing the funds at a banks disposal. D does not cast doubt over the available funding. It casts doubt over what the bankers will do with the money, but that is a separate argument.
I agree with you but partially.Because increasing the funds to banks is one aspect,granted, but not the only one.We can weaken it in different ways.

This is a plan type question
Goal: To provide more funds to the banks for development loan
Plan: Reduce tax on savings ,resulting in more funds available to the banks

The argument can be weakened if plan does not achieve it's goal.

Answer choice A attacks the plan by showing one reason if true, will not result plan to work as INTENDED -- to increase available money for banks. FULLY AGREE.

But an answer choice can ,definitely, weaken the argument if we could find a reason stating something that could lead to increased funds as intended but "what if banks do NOT pass this to the banks in need"; this could happen for many reasons: Imagine if a company needs to meet some stringent criteria to be eligible to get the loan; In that case plan is weakened as well.

Answer choice 'D' is doing something of that sort , by showing that if a company can't pay its loan in future , it won't get loan'; in this situation, even if bank has money, companies might continue to suffer.

mundasingh123 Legendary Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Posted:
2330 messages
Followed by:
26 members
56
Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:36 am
There is no point contesting an OG OA

_________________

Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 80 topics
2 LUANDATO 62 topics
3 ardz24 52 topics
4 AAPL 47 topics
5 Roland2rule 43 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

Most Active Experts

1 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

134 posts
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

131 posts
3 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

130 posts
4 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

128 posts
5 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

110 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts