Critical Reasoning

Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of Remo has created serious environmental problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Remo is developing a clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such systems. Since no companies in Remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control devices.

B. Foreign exporters would provide factory-trained technicians to maintain the pollution-control systems sold to Remo.
C. Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in Remo are trying to prevent the implementation of the government regulations.
D. The regulations that Remo plans to implement are much less strict than those in neighboring nations.
E. Pollution in Remo has caused serious health problems for workers, contributing to a significant increase in the number of workdays lost to illness.


pls help

IMO A:
It weakens the conclusion "the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems."

A too for the above.

To determine the impact of tax incentive, we need to know information about the price of each unit of pollution control device exported by foreign manufacturers.

(A) is questionable.

(C), on the other hand is pretty strong weakening agent. If lobbyists can stop the pollution control law, there is no need for pollution control equipment.

BTW, what does fundu mean ?

Bidisha800 wrote:To determine the impact of tax incentive, we need to know information about the price of each unit of pollution control device exported by foreign manufacturers.

(A) is questionable.

(C), on the other hand is pretty strong weakening agent. If lobbyists can stop the pollution control law, there is no need for pollution control equipment.

BTW, what does fundu mean ?

C is not tied to the conclusion.

IMO A

Bidisha800 wrote:To determine the impact of tax incentive, we need to know information about the price of each unit of pollution control device exported by foreign manufacturers.

(A) is questionable.

(C), on the other hand is pretty strong weakening agent. If lobbyists can stop the pollution control law, there is no need for pollution control equipment.

BTW, what does fundu mean ?

Bidesha800:
C is attacking the premise in a way that is un-acceptable. If the plan itself is not to be implemented why the author will put it forward, further, which premise does it weaken? other than throwing doubt that something will not happen...

A provides something that play down the conclusion...if local industry gets benifits in taxes they will be better placed to compete and so the foreign players could not do muc...

Logitech bhai what u have to say?

Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of Remo has created serious environmental problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Remo is developing a clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such systems. Since no companies in Remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control devices.
- this is stating local businesses will start producing their own pollution control systems, will lessen the oppurtunity for foregin exporters


C. Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in Remo are trying to prevent the implementation of the government regulations.
- this is stating that lobbyist don't want the new regulations bill to pass, but the argument clearly states IF IMPLEMENTED... so if the plan IS IMPLEMENTED the lobbyists can't do anything about the new regulations

IMO A

Hi Bidisha, Argument is clearly concluding by providing if clause .

Hence lobbyists trying is irrelevant

Conclusion: Since no companies in Remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems.

IMO D Weakens the argument

Companies in Remo would not implement pollution control system unless it is strict regulation. So this will not creat a significant opportunity for foreign exporters.

D. The regulations that Remo plans to implement are much less strict than those in neighboring nations.

Looks A to me as local investment/ effort is propotional to the incentives received.

IMO A. C is not relevant. It has the word "trying"" which will not weaken then conclusion. btw, what is OA?

C) wouldn't weaken the conclusion here which says that "If the plan is implemented". The conclusion already here takes care of the fact that "if the plan is not implemented then.....". Since (C) is already taken care of by the govt of Remo, so (C) doesn't weaken the conclusion. Also note of the fact that (C) says that lobbyists are trying to prevent the implementation of the govt regulations. We don't yet whether the lobbyists have been successful in their attempt or not?

On the other hand if (A) is true, then it will certainly impair the opportunity for the foreign exporters to create a niche market in Remo.

Thanks
Prashant

GMATPR wrote:Conclusion: Since no companies in Remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems.

IMO D Weakens the argument

Companies in Remo would not implement pollution control system unless it is strict regulation. So this will not creat a significant opportunity for foreign exporters.

D. The regulations that Remo plans to implement are much less strict than those in neighboring nations.

we dont know how strict are laws in other nations... less strict is relative term..