BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Question from 1000 series

Expert replies
by dotnetuncle » Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:29 am
A law requiring companies to offer employees unpaid time off to care for their children will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation's businesses. Companies must be free to set their own employment policies without mandated parental-leave regulations.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion of the argument above?
(A) A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country.
(B) Many businesses in this country already offer employees some form of parental leave.
(C) Some of the countries with the most economically competitive businesses have strong parental-leave regulations.
(D) Only companies with one hundred or more employees would be subject to the proposed parental-leave law.
(E) In most polls, a majority of citizens say they favor passage of a parental-leave law.

... Any clue?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by DeepakYakkundi » Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:13 pm
IMO - A

To weaken, negate the conclusion and ask why? The answer to this is correct answer.

in our case, companies must not be free to set employment policies even though it harms economic competitiveness because......

The answer A gives a proper reason why the companes should not be allowed to set employment policies.
Join the discussion

by gmatv09 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:13 pm
IMO C

==> Cos with strong parental-leave regulations are competitive
Join the discussion

by palvarez » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:26 pm
IMO, C.

C provides a positive instance that unpaid to didn't affect competitivenes of companies.
Join the discussion

by DeepakYakkundi » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:03 am
ya. C is the answer. i got it wrong :(
Join the discussion

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:04 pm
Well I feel C is the answer. I guess I'm right. If some expert could throw light on the reasoning it would be a big help.
Join the discussion