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

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 00:52

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

Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 5

Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2012, 10:39
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (02:16) correct 29% (01:22) wrong based on 83 sessions
Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles will require auto manufacturers to incorporate new technology and more costly components in cars. This will drive up the price of cars, both at home and abroad. Therefore, the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets. The argument is most seriously weakened by which of the following?

A. Most of the countries to which U.S. automobiles are exported have recently enacted similar legislation limiting emissions.
B. Non-compliance with the new legislation can be punished with high fines.
C. Training factory workers to use the new technology required to manufacture compliant automobiles will be expensive and time-consuming.
D. Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
E. Environmental groups have been leaning heavily on the auto industry to voluntarily institute such emissions standards.

GROCKIT Explanation:
This question’s conclusion—that the emissions standards legislation will result in the loss of many export markets for cars—rests on the assumption that the U.S. cars will become too expensive to be competitive in those markets. However, if other countries have recently enacted similar legislation, then the costs of domestic automobiles in those markets are likely to increase as well, which would allow the U.S. exports to raise their prices without becoming too expensive to sell.
A. This is the credited response. If many markets to which the U.S. exports cars have enacted similar legislation, it is likely that the costs of their domestic autos have increased as well, which might be sufficient to keep U.S. prices competitive even as those prices increase.
D. The possibility of auto manufacturers relocating their plants has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument.

I agree with the OA.

But, as per choice (D), relocation to countries with no stringent standards by SOME manufacturers will definitely not drive up prices of SUCH manufacturers. Hence, this will not result in the loss of SOME (if not MANY) export markets. So, this WEAKENS the argument, at least to SOME extent. Definitely not as much choice (A) does.
But why does the explanation of choice (D) say that it has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? Am I missing something in the structure of the argument itself?

Many thanks & kudos are on their way :thumbup:
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [1] , given: 4

Re: Grockit CR: Recent U.S. legislation limiting... [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2012, 10:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
supratim7 wrote:
Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles will require auto manufacturers to incorporate new technology and more costly components in cars. This will drive up the price of cars, both at home and abroad. Therefore, the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets. The argument is most seriously weakened by which of the following?

A. Most of the countries to which U.S. automobiles are exported have recently enacted similar legislation limiting emissions.
B. Non-compliance with the new legislation can be punished with high fines.
C. Training factory workers to use the new technology required to manufacture compliant automobiles will be expensive and time-consuming.
D. Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
E. Environmental groups have been leaning heavily on the auto industry to voluntarily institute such emissions standards.

GROCKIT Explanation:
This question’s conclusion—that the emissions standards legislation will result in the loss of many export markets for cars—rests on the assumption that the U.S. cars will become too expensive to be competitive in those markets. However, if other countries have recently enacted similar legislation, then the costs of domestic automobiles in those markets are likely to increase as well, which would allow the U.S. exports to raise their prices without becoming too expensive to sell.
A. This is the credited response. If many markets to which the U.S. exports cars have enacted similar legislation, it is likely that the costs of their domestic autos have increased as well, which might be sufficient to keep U.S. prices competitive even as those prices increase.
D. The possibility of auto manufacturers relocating their plants has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument.

I agree with the OA.

But, as per choice (D), relocation to countries with no stringent standards by SOME manufacturers will definitely not drive up prices of SUCH manufacturers. Hence, this will not result in the loss of SOME (if not MANY) export markets. So, this WEAKENS the argument, at least to SOME extent. Definitely not as much choice (A) does.
But why does the explanation of choice (D) say that it has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? Am I missing something in the structure of the argument itself?

Many thanks & kudos are on their way :thumbup:


As you correctly said the conclusion is : Therefore, the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets.

THUS, Our main concern in this argument is export out of USA to other countries. Relocation of plant to other countries is too far ahead of the question and out of scope. We have NO IDEA how this help. IT might NOT actually save ANY cost or it might BE MORE expensive because of cost of land, labour etc etc. IN CR we cant assume that the it will be cheaper and hence we will save money. THUS it wont have any effect on our conclusion. Plus We have a clear cut choice of answer infront of us i.e A :)

Hope it helps!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Re-take.. The OG just loves me too much.
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 67
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V29
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 48

Re: Grockit CR: Recent U.S. legislation limiting... [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2012, 10:56
Hi. Option D says about moving the production plant to a new location with lesser stringent laws.
Well, that would still require the cars (automobiles) to be fitted with the costlier components that are required to meet the new emission laws.
As it talks about production plants, it sort of goes out of scope.

Hope it helps..
_________________

Live Life the Way YOU Love It !! :)


GmatPrep1 [10/09/2012] : 650 (Q42;V38) - need to make lesser silly mistakes.
MGMAT 1 [11/09/2012] : 640 (Q44;V34) - need to improve quant pacing and overcome verbal fatigue.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 5

Re: Grockit CR: Recent U.S. legislation limiting... [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2012, 11:50
Quote:
Relocation of plant to other countries is too far ahead of the question and out of scope.

Well, doesn't all Strengthen/Weaken need to be a bit "out of scope", "outside the argument", "something new", etc. ? I remember Ron Purewal (MGMAT) categorically mentioned this in one of his post & Thursday study hall. He clearly demonstrated this prognosis in the study hall. Plus, I don't think Choice (D) is blatantly out of scope or outside the realm of the argument.

Quote:
We have NO IDEA how this help. IT might NOT actually save ANY cost or it might BE MORE expensive because of cost of land, labour etc etc. IN CR we cant assume that the it will be cheaper and hence we will save money.

Again, I remember Ron mentioned that Strengthen/Weaken work on "real-world logic" and one is supposed to make "real-world assumptions and inferences". Choice (D) says "Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards." So, this plus given the topic at hand (Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles), we sure can infer some cost advantage. Don't you think so..

Quote:
Plus We have a clear cut choice of answer infront of us i.e A :)

Absolutely. I don't doubt the OA. Just want to understand how choice (D) has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? I mean, does it really have NO EFFECT? :)

Suppose Choice (A) is not there and Choice (D) is has been modified.. i.e.
D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
What would you say then? Would it still have NO EFFECT?

BTW, thank you for taking interest :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 299
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 32

Re: Grockit CR: Recent U.S. legislation limiting... [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 02:15
supratim7 wrote:
Quote:
Relocation of plant to other countries is too far ahead of the question and out of scope.

Well, doesn't all Strengthen/Weaken need to be a bit "out of scope", "outside the argument", "something new", etc. ? I remember Ron Purewal (MGMAT) categorically mentioned this in one of his post & Thursday study hall. He clearly demonstrated this prognosis in the study hall. Plus, I don't think Choice (D) is blatantly out of scope or outside the realm of the argument.

Quote:
We have NO IDEA how this help. IT might NOT actually save ANY cost or it might BE MORE expensive because of cost of land, labour etc etc. IN CR we cant assume that the it will be cheaper and hence we will save money.

Again, I remember Ron mentioned that Strengthen/Weaken work on "real-world logic" and one is supposed to make "real-world assumptions and inferences". Choice (D) says "Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards." So, this plus given the topic at hand (Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles), we sure can infer some cost advantage. Don't you think so..

Quote:
Plus We have a clear cut choice of answer infront of us i.e A :)

Absolutely. I don't doubt the OA. Just want to understand how choice (D) has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? I mean, does it really have NO EFFECT? :)

Suppose Choice (A) is not there and Choice (D) is has been modified.. i.e.
D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
What would you say then? Would it still have NO EFFECT?

BTW, thank you for taking interest :)


D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.

Even if most of them relocate the market lost is market lost so we are not weaking the conclusion! For example

there are 20 countries of which only 2 of them don't have stringent emissions standards, so this company is still losing out those 18 countries market share so the conclusion still hold.

Now u can ask why not the other way round 18 has NO emissions standards and only 2 has stringent emissions standards, even then these auto folks are gone lose customer in those 2 countries. Customers lost are customers lost. Hence we are still not weakinng the argument

HTH!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 5

Re: Grockit CR: Recent U.S. legislation limiting... [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2012, 11:27
Quote:
D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.

Even if most of them relocate the market lost is market lost so we are not weaking the conclusion! For example

there are 20 countries of which only 2 of them don't have stringent emissions standards, so this company is still losing out those 18 countries market share so the conclusion still hold.

Now u can ask why not the other way round 18 has NO emissions standards and only 2 has stringent emissions standards, even then these auto folks are gone lose customer in those 2 countries. Customers lost are customers lost. Hence we are still not weakinng the argument

HTH!


I don't really follow the reasoning you have presented Jp27.

The argument doesn't allow these 2 situations (the ones you have considered).
The argument mentions that only 1 country (US) has enforced stringent emission stds.
So, the hypothetical situation of 18 countries with emission stds & 2 countries with no emission stds and vice-versa doesn't arise.
So, it is between 1 country (US) and other countries.
If we lose "other countries" then it DOESN'T weaken the conclusion (loss of MANY export markets). But, if we lose only US then it DOES weaken the conclusion (loss of MANY export markets)

i.e. 2 scenarios are possible:
A) US manufacturers don't relocate to country X, Y, Z > Comply with US emission > Prices escalate > lose MANY export markets > Conclusion holds
B) US manufacturers relocate to country X, Y, Z > Don't comply with US emission std > Prices don't escalate > lose ONLY US export market > > Conclusion DOESN'T hold

However my bigger point is why the Grockit answer explanation says that choice (D) has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? Does it really have NO EFFECT?

Thank you for writing in :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 299
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 32

Re: Grockit CR: Recent U.S. legislation limiting... [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2012, 12:08
supratim7 wrote:

i.e. 2 scenarios are possible:
A) US manufacturers don't relocate to country X, Y, Z > Comply with US emission > Prices escalate > lose MANY export markets > Conclusion holds
B) US manufacturers relocate to country X, Y, Z > Don't comply with US emission std > Prices don't escalate > lose ONLY US export market > > Conclusion DOESN'T hold



Why lose export market in the US? they will lose markets in other countries as well.....

And the analogy holds good. We can try attacking from another angle. In weaking Qs if we weaken the assumption we can weaken the argument.
So what's the argument and What's the assumption.

Conclusion -> the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets.

Premise -> Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles will require auto manufacturers to incorporate new technology and more costly components in cars. This will drive up the price of cars, both at home and abroad.

Assumption -> Author should think that ppl in the home country / aboard wont buy cars if the price goes. What if ppl are still willing to buy the cars? what if the cars prices in the other countries have also gone up because of similar regulations in that country as well, then the new US car price wont seem too high . -> this is what is showed in Answer A

Now what happens if were to counter the author with this clain "the US guys will re-locate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards"

The author would simply respond saying that, still US manufacturer will loss markets (in US and aboard), so the legislation will HURT the US manufacturer!
So this indeed has NO Effect!

HTH
Current Student
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1097
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 67

Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink] New post 24 Oct 2012, 18:30
I agree that Ron had mentioned outside reasoning needs to be present in the correct answer choice at the same time he explained out of scope and outside reasoning presented but they dont have any effect on the argument.

lets look at D closely, there is no where stated about the cost of parts of car in other countries. had it been cheaper in those than it would have weaken, but nothing such is mentioned it is just outside scope or having no effect.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 82

Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2012, 01:33
was b/w A and B..chose B..:(
wat abt B?? is not weaken the conclusion

if they will not comply with law..they will punished with high fines??..
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible   [#permalink] 25 Oct 2012, 01:33
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
According to recent study data, greenhouse gas emissions doe007 3 17 May 2013, 00:04
The sentence: Scientists have recently received permission stringworm 2 17 Sep 2011, 06:33
1 Experts publish their posts in the topic Scientists have recently received permission to research SudiptoGmat 9 15 May 2010, 03:20
Scientists have recently received permission to research Matador 8 13 Apr 2006, 12:46
Scientists have recently received permission to research rchadha 6 23 Oct 2005, 15:36
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible

  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®.