Keith: Compliance with new government regulations : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 04:03

### 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

# Keith: Compliance with new government regulations

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 1271 [3] , given: 40

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2010, 03:38
3
KUDOS
14
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

58% (02:03) correct 42% (01:09) wrong based on 1232 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

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

If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 297
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 130 [4] , given: 0

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2010, 04:38
4
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
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 267
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 2

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
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 [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 577 [0], given: 6

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 188
Followers: 2

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

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 574
GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Followers: 106

Kudos [?]: 840 [2] , given: 319

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2013, 05:30
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 328
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 23

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 608
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 266 [0], given: 200

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 09:04
Had to decide between C and E, fast got traped by the second part of (E) optimism/pessimism but noticed later that she didn't agree with the main conclusion Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 804
Followers: 353

Kudos [?]: 704 [0], given: 5

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 18:54
russ9 wrote:
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.

It's not B because she doesn't say that Keith's evidence is invalid. She accepts that jobs could be lost. She is saying that Keith's evidence is correct but incomplete because he doesn't take into account the additional jobs created.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 804
Followers: 353

Kudos [?]: 704 [0], given: 5

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 20:10
I realized that I didn't respond to your comment about mitigating. Don't be afraid of words you don't fully understand in the moment. You need to eliminate the wrong answers until you get to the correct one. And be careful to not quickly eliminate on what you think it might mean.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manager
Joined: 25 Apr 2013
Posts: 68
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 12

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2015, 05:33
To me, it was between C and E. E sounded slightly more extreme in 2 ways:

I) Agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument: There is no explicit agreement that Laura shows with Keith's argument

II) "Optimism" and "pessimism" are again slightly unsupported.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2016, 17:59
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations   [#permalink] 26 Apr 2016, 17:59
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring 1 01 Jul 2015, 05:16
2 Editorial: Regulations recently imposed by the government of 6 03 May 2014, 17:06
4 Critics insist that government regulation of business has 8 12 Mar 2012, 01:54
8 Editorial : Regulations recently imposed by the government 9 15 Nov 2011, 16:01
If the city council institutes new parking regulations, city 4 23 Jul 2007, 12:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by