Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 18:07

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 387 [7] , given: 6

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 12:00
7
KUDOS
58
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

49% (02:34) correct 51% (01:55) wrong based on 3323 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Please some one explain this...as i am not convinced with the explanation from OG
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by carcass on 07 Jan 2016, 03:25, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the post
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 175
Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 176 [17] , given: 3

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 13:42
17
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Fact1: Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans.
Fact 2: 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
Conclusion: Because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.
Weakness: Do the people actually put money in their retirement accounts? This is not the right weakness as it's mentioned in the fact section and not the conclusion section.(hence C is incorrect).

Right Weakness: Money deposited into retirements accounts might not result is more money available to borrowers (Mentioned in the conclusion).
Scan through the choices which states this -
A looks like the closest match.
_________________

Rock On

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 578 [14] , given: 6

### Show Tags

14 May 2010, 11:13
14
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I picked the wrong OA too.....but after reading thru the explanation I understand that I was wrong.

The premise mean to say that as more money is deposited in such
accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers ( business borrowers).

Now A says that as personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.....the important point here is that consumer borrowing is different from business borrowing

The government is intending to increase retirement savings so that businesses can borrow but what if because of increase in retirement savings end consumers borrowing also increases correspondingly....this will defeat the purpose of the plan.
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 649
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 219 [11] , given: 51

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2011, 03:09
11
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
C states 'Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.'

but that also means some people will choose to increase their levels of retirement savings, hence funds available for borrowing will still increase. and that increase amount will be available for businesses to borrow.

so C doesn't weaken the conclusion .

A states that number of borrowers will increase , this may result in even lesser funds for businesses to borrow than were previously available.

hence A seriously weakens the conclusion
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 3545
Location: India
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1514

Kudos [?]: 11847 [2] , given: 1861

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2015, 09:26
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Quote:
Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this.

The argument:
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.

In a nutshell --- if we tweak the tax system to encourage folks to put more into their retirement accounts, then presto, more money for loans will be available to business.

Prompt:
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?

So, which answer effectively says -- make those changes to the tax code, and there won't be as much money for loans available to business?

(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
OK, so when people put more into their retirement, they wind up borrowing more. That would mean, private citizens en masse would be competing with business for that loan money --- that would mean less money for loans available to business. A possible right answer.

(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.
Making this change to the tax code could wind up hurting the government --- interesting, but not relevant to the argument. The argument is strictly about: will business have more money available for loans? What happens to the government is irrelevant to this argument. (B) is out.

(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
This argument above is a macroeconomics argument. It's about changes in the entire tax-system, the entire banking system, etc. Of course, not every private citizen will follow the tax incentive. Tax incentives are given with the idea that only a certain percentage of the population will respond to them. So, some private citizens won't respond to the tax incentive. So what? That's 100% predictable, and not relevant to the big macroeconomic argument at hand. (C) is out.

(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
Well, anyone -- a household or a business --- that fails to meet loan payments is not going to be wildly successful getting more loans. That's pretty obvious. There's absolutely nothing in the original argument suggesting that the businesses discussed are so strapped for money that they all are defaulting on their loans. The business are "struggling" insofar as they can't take out loans to fund R&D, which would grow already thriving businesses. My business is making money already, and I want to to R&D to grow it, but there's no money for loans so I can pursue that R&D --- that's the problem we are addressing, according to the original argument. The problem of some business defaulting on their loans --- that's something separate, not relevant to this argument. (D) is out.

(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.
Again, this is a macroeconomic argument. What matters it the total revenue taken in by the government. Let's say, because of this tax code change, retirement accounts get an additional $1 billion, and that new money is available for loans to business. That$1 billion could have come from everybody in the whole socioeconomic spectrum making an equal contribution, or it could have come from rich people putting in much much more than middle class people. From the business standpoint, once they have that $1 billion available for loans, they don't give a flying figtree where it came from. From the business point of view, it's completely irrelevant how the government goes about raising that money; the specifics of allocation by various socioeconomic classes doesn't matter at all. (E) is out. Thus, answer (A) is the only one that poses a direct attack on the argument, so that's the answer. Does that make sense? Here's another free CR practice question of a similar type. http://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/1257 The question at that link should be followed by a free video with a complete explanation of the solution, once you submit you answer. Let me know if you have any other questions. @mikemcgarry _________________ EMPOWERgmat Instructor Joined: 23 Feb 2015 Posts: 173 Followers: 139 Kudos [?]: 401 [2] , given: 51 Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money [#permalink] ### Show Tags 28 Dec 2015, 15:03 2 This post received KUDOS Expert's post 2 This post was BOOKMARKED 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. Type: Weaken Boil It Down: Tax change -> More deposits -> More$ for DEVELOPMENT loans
Missing Information: The plan will work.
Goal: Our goal is to “raise the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan”. That means we need to select an option that points to a reality in which the government’s goal of facilitating greater capital available for business development loans won’t be achieved. We need to find an option that shows that despite the government's plan, there wouldn’t be an increase in funds available for business development loans specifically.

Yes. This option exposes the truth that when retirement savings increase, CONSUMER borrowing always increases correspondingly. In other words, this option would radically wipe out the hope that increased retirement deposits will boost funds available for DEVELOPMENT borrowing. The capital is likely to get absorbed by consumers instead. Notice that this argument doesn’t entirely destroy the plan, but it absolutely raises a serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government’s plan to boost funds available for DEVELOPMENT loans.

Also notice the nasty shift from CONSUMER borrowing to BUSINESS borrowing. The prompt says: "Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans." This argument is bluntly stating that the objective is to promote the lending capacity for businesses. So now, according to A, if that new lending capacity spurred on by a boost in savings among individual taxpayers is getting scooped up by consumers (individuals) instead, is this new lending capacity as likely to make it to businesses? No. That's why A weakens the likelihood that the plan will work. This option turns out to be a stunningly awesome demonstration of the degree of precision and engagement we need when we read.

The health of the federal budget is violently Out of Focus to what this question asks us to do. This plan could result in a dramatic cut in revenue for the government, but the government's goal of boosting loans available for business development could still work.

No impact. Nobody is making the claim that EVERYONE will boost retirement savings as a result of the government’s plan, so whether SOME people don’t increase retirement savings is of no consequence to an evaluation of the government’s plan. This option provides no significant information to show that the government’s plan is not likely to succeed.

Trash this option. We have no way to tell how relevant this option is to the government’s plan. If banks won’t lend to businesses that are unlikely to pay the loans on time, the government’s plan to boost lending to businesses in general could still succeed because, for all we know, a substantial share of businesses could still qualify. We just don’t know to what extent this loan condition impacts the lending environment. For this option to be even remotely in play, the test-taker would have to make the unwarranted leap that a substantial volume of businesses can’t meet the loan payment schedules. We can’t make any such leap.

This option introduces a factor that has no clear impact on the likelihood that the government’s plan will work. This option could just as easily help reaffirm the likelihood that the government’s plan would work if it appears a general increase in retirement funds were available. In that interpretation of E, it actually becomes a 180 option.

Bigger GMAT Perspective:
Why is this question statistically so hard? A brutally sneaky shift in focus from CONSUMER lending to BUSINESS lending. What can be done to be able see the magnitude of option A? The most basic GMAT Verbal tenet of all: extremely engaged and careful reading. That's something that takes more discipline (especially when a timer is running, and the adrenaline is flowing) than most people realize. GMAT assassins train to be able to read at optimal 200 WPM pace. It's staggering how much easier the GMAT feels when it's read at optimal speed, and with the right set of engaged reading actions. Test-takers are able to reduce time wasted re-reading, and trim time evaluating the options.
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Last edited by EMPOWERgmatMax on 11 Jan 2016, 14:12, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [1] , given: 17

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2012, 06:50
1
KUDOS
salil wrote:

I'm not saying that A is wrong. But the explanation still doesn't rule C out.

As per my response above, The plan would fail because people won't put more money than is currently in a retirement savings account in spite of changes to the tax structure.

I think the reason that OG quotes is not good enough to rule out option C.

As my undertanding. "Some" is pretty close to the "few", perhaps 30%. Clearly, "some" doesn't represnting "most". Furthermore, (C) gives us some weaken but not strong enough compare with (A). Remeber, we have to determine which one is "most weaken" the argument. In other words, partially weaken is not a correct answer(same to the strengthen question). Thus, C out and A is the best!

I got better explaination from another site, but not sure if I can post link here.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 387 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 12:35
Still waiting for some more replies before posting OA
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 387 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 14:06
Yes A it is...
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 76

Kudos [?]: 1271 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

14 May 2010, 03:47
Even I marked C but I doubt the OA in OG. The last line of argument says that -

because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

While A says that -
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.

This is ambiguous. I think to make this a correct argument, the last line of the passage should have been -
because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to bankers/lenders.

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 76

Kudos [?]: 1271 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

14 May 2010, 03:48
Also, A is just the prephased of last sentence of the argument.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 188
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 00:36
agreed with seekmba
if people would put more money in retirement saving plan they eventualy end up very less personal saving hence they could become borrowers themselves, and this could frustrate govt's plan, hence the nas must be A
Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2010, 18:57
I don't see why C doesn't weaken the conclusion.

The OG concludes that effectiveness of the plan would be determined not by what "some" people do but by what "most" people do. I would argue that by logic, some means at least one i.e. It can be 1, most or all!

We have to take the choices as true since it is a weaken question i.e. for C, if the people decide not to put money into retirement savings account, then the conclusion is weakened in that the plan to provide more money to borrowers via the retirement savings account will not work.
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2010, 19:43
Plan of government is to increase the money so that it can meet the loan amount required. Therefore, govt thinking to modify the tax structure to get the more money collected .
But, if due to this plan, if money demanded by the business/consumer also increases, then this plan will not work

Hence A
_________________

Kudos if any of my post helps you !!!

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 498
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 149

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2010, 01:11
sagarsabnis 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.
(8) 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.
(e) 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.

Please some one explain this...as i am not convinced with the explanation from OG

What abt E ?
If the taxes that people save after increasing their retirement savings does not differ from what it would have been had they not increased their retirement saving, then people would not have incentive to save.
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 498
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 149

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2010, 01:12
mundasingh123 wrote:
sagarsabnis 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.
(8) 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.
(e) 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.

Please some one explain this...as i am not convinced with the explanation from OG

What abt E ?
If the taxes that people save after increasing their retirement savings does not differ from what it would have been had they not increased their retirement saving, then people would not have incentive to save.

I think i misread the option .
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Senior Manager
Status: Bring the Rain
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 406
Location: United States (MD)
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: Michigan (Ross) - Class of 2014
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.13
WE: Corporate Finance (Aerospace and Defense)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 46

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2010, 07:56
I would go with A
_________________
Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Dec 2010, 13:02
saurabhgoel wrote:
Plan of government is to increase the money so that it can meet the loan amount required. Therefore, govt thinking to modify the tax structure to get the more money collected .
But, if due to this plan, if money demanded by the business/consumer also increases, then this plan will not work

Hence A

I'm not saying that A is wrong. But the explanation still doesn't rule C out.

As per my response above, The plan would fail because people won't put more money than is currently in a retirement savings account in spite of changes to the tax structure.

I think the reason that OG quotes is not good enough to rule out option C.
Manager
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 64
Location: Korea, Republic of
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-16-2012
GPA: 3.05
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 37

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2012, 19:03
Expert...

I still don't understand why OA is A.
_________________

Luck is the additional surplus on the way to one's constant effort.

Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 87
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 21

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2012, 22:12
Hi

I shortlisted my choices between A and E,

A-Consumer borrowing is different than business borrowing, So Govt will not have funds to provide loan to business- Govt. Plan failed
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- Means it is helpful as retirement saving will have flat saving for all income level people
Re: Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money   [#permalink] 28 Jun 2012, 22:12

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 49 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Because most hospitals suffer a chronic undersupply of 5 28 Apr 2012, 19:40
13 Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money 6 22 Feb 2012, 11:29
1 Jordan: If a business invests the money necessary to 5 09 Dec 2010, 12:40
12 Public hospitals are suffering because of a lack of money 20 27 Oct 2010, 17:36
6 Business are suffering because of a lack of money available 23 28 Mar 2008, 11:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by