Editorial: Regulations recently imposed by the government of Risemia

price (up) -> exports (down) ... now we have to ask ourselves what weakes this... in other words price (up) + xxx -> exports (not down)

only A gives us a reason to believe that the exports wont go down, because:
1.) a strong demand for the equipement will emerge
2.) new equipment will be developed that can be sold because there is a demand for it...

the answer has to be A : the need to comply with the new regulations will stimulate the development within Sri Lanka of new pollution control equipment for which a strong worldwide demand is likely toemerge.

the conclusion is : annual exports of Sri Lankan manufactured goods will in the future occur at diminished levels.

to undermine this we need to show that somehow this is not happening .this is exactly what A does .

Crux (conclusion) of the argument: Annual exports of Sri Lankan manufactured goods will in the future occur at diminished levels.

So now you need an answer choice which can negate the above claim and make the above statement doubtful.

A. This statement brings an option which adds to the negation of the conclusion.
B. Irrelevant. This statement does not help us with any additional information as to why the exports will not diminish. Moreover this statement talks about more taxation thereby increasing the cost.
C. This statement strengthens a claim that whatever measure SL govt has put in place is a costly affair.
D. What international standard thinks about these measures is irrelevant to us.
E. Out of scope of the above statement.

Must be A

Any answer choice which supports the development of these costly equipment will weaken's the argument !!

A: Provide New information, & if true clearly weaken's the argument
B : Out of Scope : As What other provisions this particular law will implement is of no use.
C: Out of Scope : if this is true then it will effect bottom line of companies, no use
D : Very attractive choice but wrong, because we are not interested in world wide pollutants / pollution norms, secondly it mentioned some manufacturing companies which is wrong.
E : Out of Scope irrelevant what stake holders do...

Regards
ST

Conclusion :annual exports of Sri Lankan manufactured goods will in the future occur at diminished levels.

A. the need to comply with the new regulations will stimulate the development within Sri Lanka of new pollution control equipment for which a strong worldwide demand is likely to emerge. (Correct )
This shows that in future there will be an increase in demand of the pollution control equipment and Sri Lanka can increase their annual exports in future thereby weakening the conclusion.
B. the proposed regulations include a schedule of fines for noncompliance that escalate steeply in cases of repeated noncompliance.
Imposing fines will increase Manufactured goods of the industry cost of production, which results in decrease in Sri Lanka's exports thereby supporting the argument.
C. Savings from utilizing the chemicals captured by the pollution control equipment will remain far below the cost of maintaining the equipment.
-Out of scope
D. By international standards, the levels of pollutants currently emitted by some of Sri Lanka's manufacturing plants are not considered excessive.
-This option is clearly wrong being out of scope
E. The stockholders of most of Sri Lanka's manufacturing corporations exert substantial pressure on the corporations to comply with environmental laws.
Out of scope

Conclusion says that annual exports will diminish in R because new equipment will require expensive maintenance. Cost increase will lead to loss in some markets.

In order to weaken the conclusion, we should find out something that shows that new equipment will actually or likely to increase the export.

Only option A does that

Ok so there is a chain as below

Reductions in the amounts of pollutants--->New pollution control equipment--->expensive maintenance--->price increases --->diminished level of exports

Based on preliminary examination of options only (A) and (C) can be contenders

(A) the need to comply with the new regulations will stimulate the development within Risemia of new pollution control equipment for which a strong worldwide demand is likely to emerge.

Infact option (A) states that it is an opportunity to boost export by the sale of pollution control equipments

Increase in Exports possible.

(C) Savings from utilizing the chemicals captured by the pollution control equipment will remain far below the cost of maintaining the equipment.

Savings > Cost of maintaining the equipment.

This choice goes halfway and doesn't prove anything it is just a casual statement / comment and doesn't weaken the conclusion...

Hence answer must be (A)

IMO

A -This choice has 2 strong reasons that it is a weakner.
If the demand of such devices increases in the future,then other countries will start to import the same device , which will lead to -
First, they will know why the Manu. goods' export prices increased in Risemia and Second, one more branch of exportation will open in Risemia(exporting such devices) .Thus, the Export will not diminish definitely. - does not destroy but definitely weakens.

B - if companies will not follow the regulations, then some fines likely to be deducted . that will also add in the same goods' prices, which will again lead to decrease in the export of good. - Strengthens

C - Cost is really high - Same, it will also lead to decrease in the export of goods. - Strengthens

D - This choice is really interesting but the Argument has not talked that the Regulations in Risemia are imposed because of International Standards - Out of scope
E - Clearly out of scope.


Hope it helps.

1. the conclusion is focusing only on manufactured goods but not on any goods from Risemian. Then why A is correct - SEEMS IRRELEVANT
2. Even if we assume new equipment is also under category of "manufactured goods in Risemian", it doesn't mean the new equipment would be in demand from Risemian.--SEEMS NOT STRENGTHENING and i need to assume extra that new equipment is also manufactured goods ( but in the passage, manufactured goods means that are related with amounts of pollutants as per passage)

VeritasKarishma : please suggest

New regulations require costly new pollution control equipment.
Resultant price increases for Risemian manufactured goods will lead to the loss of some export markets.

Conclusion: Clearly, therefore, annual exports of Risemian manufactured goods will in the future occur at diminished levels.

The conclusion says that annual exports of Risemian manufactured goods will diminish. Note that we are not talking only about the currently manufactured goods but about all Risemian manufactured goods - those that are manufactured currently and those that will be manufactured in the future too.

We need to weaken this.

(A) The need to comply with the new regulations will stimulate the development within Risemia of new pollution control equipment for which a strong worldwide demand is likely to emerge.

Due to this need, Risemia will develop new equipment. This equipment will have strong worldwide demand. So the equipment that will be made in Risemia will have strong demand outside. Hence, the exports may not fall. These new products may carry the export numbers in the future. Correct. There is no reason to believe that equipment developed in Risemia for use in Risemia may not be manufactured in Risemia. It is a fair assumption that developed in Risemia means designed and manufactured there.


(E) The stockholders of most of Risemia's manufacturing corporations exert substantial pressure on the corporations to comply with environmental laws.

Doesn't talk about exports at all. What stockholders feel is irrelevant.

Answer (A)

Reduction in the amount of pollutants manufacturers allowed to discharge into env.
New equipments required - Fixed cost (high) + Variable cost (high) -> Regulation price will increase -> Loss of some export markets

Conclusion : Annual exports -> diminished level

Approach :
1. some export markets can be very small number. In that case, the export will not occur at diminished level.
2. What if the manufacturers save more than they spend on equipments ? Maybe they were getting fined earlier. Then the chain will break.
3. What if the export demand increases in the future..?


(A) The need to comply with the new regulations will stimulate the development within Risemia of new pollution control equipment for which a strong worldwide demand is likely to emerge.
Goes with Approach-3

(B) The proposed regulations include a schedule of fines for noncompliance that escalate steeply in cases of repeated noncompliance.
We don't care about the future savings/spendings. We care about the export level with the existing situation.
OOS

(C) Savings from utilizing the chemicals captured by the pollution control equipment will remain far below the cost of maintaining the equipment.
Strengthens
Goes against Approach-2

(D) By international standards, the levels of pollutants currently emitted by some of Risemia's manufacturing plants are not considered excessive.
We don't care about the international standards. We care about the export level with the existing situation.
OOS

(E) The stockholders of most of Risemia's manufacturing corporations exert substantial pressure on the corporations to comply with environmental laws.
We don't care about the pressure stockholders are exerting on the corporations.
There may not be a way round for manufacturers but to spend on equipments.
Slightly strengthens.

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.