help

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:31 pm
Thanked: 42 times
Followed by:20 members

help

by sana.noor » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:04 am
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.

OA is E why not B?
Work hard in Silence, Let Success make the noise.

If you found my Post really helpful, then don't forget to click the Thank/follow me button. :)
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:58 am
Solving by Negation Technique
{B} - INCORRECT; It would cost LESS 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. -- even though its less.. We are not told whether that amount is affordable for small companies.. For example: 1.1Million < 1.2 Million but Small companies can afford 10,000

{E} - CORRECT; ALL 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. --- So, only 3 companies won't be left.. but,infact, all 10
R A H U L

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:47 pm
Hi sana.noor,

From the prompt, we're NOT told how much the "conversion" would cost for any of the 10 companies; we're just told that all 10 companies would have to convert their production lines. Maybe the costs are the same for all 10 companies, maybe they're different, but we have no information at all on this subject. Thus, answer B doesn't make sense as an assumption in the context of our information.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:43 am
sana.noor wrote: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.

OA is E why not B?
Dear sana.noor,
I'm happy to help with this. :-)

Here's the blog that talks about Assumptions and the Negation Test.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/assumption ... -the-gmat/

Negate (B): It would cost no 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. Suppose the cost of conversion is the same in all 10 companies, or suppose it's even slightly more expensive for the three large companies. In other case, if the larger companies are considerably larger and have correspondingly larger profits, the perhaps they can absorb the cost of conversion, whereas the small companies with small budgets cannot. Thus, the argument & conclusion can still work, even though we negate this statement. Therefore, this statement is not an assumption.

Negate (E): Some 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. Notice, incidentally, the opposite of "none" is not "all" --- the opposite of "none" is "some". Well, if some of those small companies already have the correct specifications, then they would not have to spend a dime on conversion, and would be able to remain in business even if the government regulated the sector. This devastates the argument.
If we deny a statement, and the resulting negated statement poses a devastating objection to the argument, then that original statement is an assumption.

Does all this make sense?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/