Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 22 Jul 2014, 14:18

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 956
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 51

Kudos [?]: 668 [1] , given: 40

GMAT Tests User
Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 14 May 2010, 03:38
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (low)

Question Stats:

62% (02:01) correct 38% (01:09) wrong based on 270 sessions
Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by

(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 298
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 64 [1] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 14 May 2010, 04:38
1
This post received
KUDOS
ykaiim wrote:
Tricky!

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand >>> Laura doesn't ignore the issue.
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument >>>>>> Laura doesn't question the validity of the evidence/data.
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence >>> CORRECT
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites >>> Laura doesn't reinforce the conclusion, here the conclusion is : jobs will be lost and profits diminished..
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism >>> She doesn't agree with the main conclusion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 268
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 14 May 2010, 06:58
ykaiim wrote:
Tricky!

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism

It has to be C.
C & E are the two short listed choices, but E does not talk about the conclusion of Keith's argument "hese regulations will harm the country’s economy". Hence C.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 44
Location: New York, NY
Schools: Columbia, NYU, Wharton, UCLA, Berkeley
WE 1: 2 Yrs mgmt consulting
WE 2: 2 yrs m&a
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

Reviews Badge
Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 14 May 2010, 10:05
Agree it's C.
E might come close but it's not even right because Laura never even agreed with Keith in what she said..she simply suggested the point that he overlooked. Which is C.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1563
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 6

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 14 May 2010, 11:31
it is C.

Laura suggests that Keith’s argument (jobs will be lost and profits diminished) overlooks a mitigating consequence ($25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 175
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User
Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 15 May 2010, 00:13
it must be C , as laura say mean to say that whatever the loss would occcur to the entertainment industry in the form of expendicture , would serve as a profit for the other industries as they would get the job for fiing sprinkelrs etc.
clearly its C
2 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 483
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 395 [2] , given: 239

Premium Member
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 18 Nov 2013, 05:30
2
This post received
KUDOS

_________________

How to CHOOSE your Business School
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

Rules for posting on the verbal forum
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources such as 1000 series.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 232
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 21

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink] New post 13 Apr 2014, 14:54
Can someone explain why it's not B? Doesn't Laura challenge his evidence by saying that Keith is not looking at the big picture?

EDIT: Maybe the definition of "mitigating" threw me off as well. I read C as - Laura is suggesting that Keith's argument is overlooking a very serious consequence? Why it's not B still baffles me.

Thanks in advance.
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations   [#permalink] 13 Apr 2014, 14:54
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Editorial: Regulations recently imposed by the government of TooLong150 4 03 May 2014, 17:06
4 Editorial : Regulations recently imposed by the government enigma123 5 15 Nov 2011, 16:01
AWA Review - Regulation of Environment by Government AVakil 2 18 Dec 2007, 06:01
If FDA doesnot relax some of its regulations governing the MA 11 02 Mar 2005, 22:00
Abolition of government regulation of airfares has increased Janice 9 05 Jan 2005, 20:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.