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

It is currently 16 Sep 2014, 00:03

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

The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 278
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 20 [1] , given: 282

The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2012, 03:05
1
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:26) correct 50% (01:28) wrong based on 127 sessions
The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that banks are favouring profits over customer welfare. This is because banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers. The regulator regretted that the lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.
Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the position taken by the apex banking regulator?
(A) Banks are in essence businesses so their primary motive should be to make profits
(B) The costs of running a bank have gone up considerably in recent times
(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers
(D) The sales of several high value products such as automobiles and homes have gone down because of the high interest rate charged on loans by banks
(E) Even publicly owned banks have not passed on the benefit of lower liquidity reserve ratio rates to their customers
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 34
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 11-08-2012
GPA: 2.67
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [1] , given: 4

Re: The apex banking regulator in the country [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2012, 04:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
rajathpanta wrote:
The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that banks are favouring profits over customer welfare. This is because banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers. The regulator regretted that the lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.
Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the position taken by the apex banking regulator?
(A) Banks are in essence businesses so their primary motive should be to make profits
(B) The costs of running a bank have gone up considerably in recent times
(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers
(D) The sales of several high value products such as automobiles and homes have gone down because of the high interest rate charged on loans by banks
(E) Even publicly owned banks have not passed on the benefit of lower liquidity reserve ratio rates to their customers


Argument is like this:
1. Conclusion: banks are favoring profits over customer welfare
2. Premise to 1: banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers.
3. Premise to 2 (2 is derived from this): lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.

So, we have a 2-level logic. one premise (3) leads to one conclusion (2), which further leads to the final conclusion (1).

Now, lets look at the options:

(A) Banks are in essence businesses so their primary motive should be to make profits - doesn't relate to any premise.

(B) The costs of running a bank have gone up considerably in recent times - it talks about increase in the costs of bank, which could explain the reason that the banks might not have been able to pass on the benefits to the customers. Thus, it would counter the conclusion that the banks are favoring profits over customer welfare; since the banks have not been able to save money due to high costs, they could not pass the benefit to the customers. It basically attacks the starting premise (statement 3 above) by saying that the banks just can't reduce rates, due to high costs, not due to any other reason.

(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers - this can also counter the argument by attacking the second premise (statement 2 above). This option could counter the conclusion by saying that banks have indeed passed on the benefit of reserve ratio cut, by investing in improving banking experience, rather than through a rate cut. However, there is a slight difference. In the argument, the banking regulator is talking about recent cut in rates and passing of this cut to the customers. This option does not say that the banks have increased investments after the rate cut or in recent times; it just says that they still invest. So, there could have been no change in their investment from past. Thus, they might not have passed on the benefit of recent cut in rates. Unlike this, Option B specifically talks about 'recent' increase in costs. Thus, B more strongly counters the argument

(D) The sales of several high value products such as automobiles and homes have gone down because of the high interest rate charged on loans by banks - then they should have heeded the bankign regulator anf cut the rates :-D . This is irrelevant.

(E) Even publicly owned banks have not passed on the benefit of lower liquidity reserve ratio rates to their customers - Doesn't attack any premise. Introduces a new angle to the argument. Not relevant.

Cheers,
CJ
_________________

If this post is helpful, think of giving KUDOS.

Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1788
Followers: 1263

Kudos [?]: 3506 [0], given: 185

Re: The apex banking regulator in the country [#permalink] New post 26 Oct 2012, 16:41
Expert's post
@Chiranjeev has provided an excellent explanation, however I would like to modify his explanation of choice C (which is mostly correct)

Quote:
(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers


This choice is completely neutral and does not weaken the argument event slightly: This choice simply says that banks did something in the past and they are still doing in now. Its like saying that banks provided free coffee in the past and still do so now. Does it mean that banks have increased their investment in coffee (probably by serving Latte's instead of black coffee) - no. Does it mean that they have decreased the investment - no. Hence, this choice is completely neutral and not a "weak" weakener.

-Rajat
_________________



Free Webinar: Sep 6, 2014 - Ace GMAT Sentence Correction: Register for this Free Webinar to learn the importance of meaning, achieve 90% accuracy and score V40+. Click here to register.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 82

Re: The apex banking regulator in the country [#permalink] New post 28 Oct 2012, 12:54
I am not agree with B..

wat if cost have increase still profit might also increases with that??
_________________

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 34
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 11-08-2012
GPA: 2.67
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 4

Re: The apex banking regulator in the country [#permalink] New post 28 Oct 2012, 19:03
egmat wrote:
@Chiranjeev has provided an excellent explanation, however I would like to modify his explanation of choice C (which is mostly correct)

Quote:
(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers


This choice is completely neutral and does not weaken the argument event slightly: This choice simply says that banks did something in the past and they are still doing in now. Its like saying that banks provided free coffee in the past and still do so now. Does it mean that banks have increased their investment in coffee (probably by serving Latte's instead of black coffee) - no. Does it mean that they have decreased the investment - no. Hence, this choice is completely neutral and not a "weak" weakener.

-Rajat


Hi,

I agree with most of your explanation. However, I have a query. It would be great if you could help me with this.

The stem is "Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the position taken by the apex banking regulator? ".

What is the position taken by the apex banking regulator?

Isn't this the same as conclusion i.e. "banks are favouring profits over customer welfare"?

If this is the case, isn't option C damaging to this position?

Even, if the stem is changed to the following:

Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the argument by the apex banking regulator?

Still, in this case also, option C is not completely neutral.

Let's see:

1. Conclusion: banks are favoring profits over customer welfare
2. Premise to 1: banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers.
3. Premise to 2 (2 is derived from this): lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.

Option C doesn't counter either statement 2 or statement 3 (since we limit ourselves to recent rate cuts). But there is an assumption needed to generalize statement 2 (premise to 1) to the conclusion (statement 1). See below argument:

Even if the banks have not passed on the benefit of recent rate cuts to the consumers, we can't say that banks are favoring profits over customer welfare because banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers.

Does this argument not make sense at all? If not, then option C is neutral. If it makes some sense, then option C is a weak "weakener".

Rajat - Your views are welcome.

Warm Regards,
CJ
_________________

If this post is helpful, think of giving KUDOS.

VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
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 [?]: 263 [0], given: 67

Re: The apex banking regulator in the country [#permalink] New post 30 Oct 2012, 13:08
chiranjeev12 wrote:
rajathpanta wrote:
The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that banks are favouring profits over customer welfare. This is because banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers. The regulator regretted that the lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.
Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the position taken by the apex banking regulator?
(A) Banks are in essence businesses so their primary motive should be to make profits
(B) The costs of running a bank have gone up considerably in recent times
(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers
(D) The sales of several high value products such as automobiles and homes have gone down because of the high interest rate charged on loans by banks
(E) Even publicly owned banks have not passed on the benefit of lower liquidity reserve ratio rates to their customers


Argument is like this:
1. Conclusion: banks are favoring profits over customer welfare
2. Premise to 1: banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers.
3. Premise to 2 (2 is derived from this): lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.

So, we have a 2-level logic. one premise (3) leads to one conclusion (2), which further leads to the final conclusion (1).

Now, lets look at the options:

(A) Banks are in essence businesses so their primary motive should be to make profits - doesn't relate to any premise.

(B) The costs of running a bank have gone up considerably in recent times - it talks about increase in the costs of bank, which could explain the reason that the banks might not have been able to pass on the benefits to the customers. Thus, it would counter the conclusion that the banks are favoring profits over customer welfare; since the banks have not been able to save money due to high costs, they could not pass the benefit to the customers. It basically attacks the starting premise (statement 3 above) by saying that the banks just can't reduce rates, due to high costs, not due to any other reason.

(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers - this can also counter the argument by attacking the second premise (statement 2 above). This option could counter the conclusion by saying that banks have indeed passed on the benefit of reserve ratio cut, by investing in improving banking experience, rather than through a rate cut. However, there is a slight difference. In the argument, the banking regulator is talking about recent cut in rates and passing of this cut to the customers. This option does not say that the banks have increased investments after the rate cut or in recent times; it just says that they still invest. So, there could have been no change in their investment from past. Thus, they might not have passed on the benefit of recent cut in rates. Unlike this, Option B specifically talks about 'recent' increase in costs. Thus, B more strongly counters the argument

(D) The sales of several high value products such as automobiles and homes have gone down because of the high interest rate charged on loans by banks - then they should have heeded the bankign regulator anf cut the rates :-D . This is irrelevant.

(E) Even publicly owned banks have not passed on the benefit of lower liquidity reserve ratio rates to their customers - Doesn't attack any premise. Introduces a new angle to the argument. Not relevant.

Cheers,
CJ


In your explanation of option choice C....you have very well pointed out the ambuity in the usage of STILL.
The use of word "Many banks" at start of the sentence made me to dump the option as the bank regulators are talking of the BANKS i.e. all the banks and when most banks are mentioned that means still there a few banks not providing customer services....hence the option can be dumped
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 34
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 11-08-2012
GPA: 2.67
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 4

Re: The apex banking regulator in the country [#permalink] New post 30 Oct 2012, 17:04
Archit143 wrote:
chiranjeev12 wrote:
rajathpanta wrote:
The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that banks are favouring profits over customer welfare. This is because banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers. The regulator regretted that the lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.
Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the position taken by the apex banking regulator?
(A) Banks are in essence businesses so their primary motive should be to make profits
(B) The costs of running a bank have gone up considerably in recent times
(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers
(D) The sales of several high value products such as automobiles and homes have gone down because of the high interest rate charged on loans by banks
(E) Even publicly owned banks have not passed on the benefit of lower liquidity reserve ratio rates to their customers


Argument is like this:
1. Conclusion: banks are favoring profits over customer welfare
2. Premise to 1: banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers.
3. Premise to 2 (2 is derived from this): lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.

So, we have a 2-level logic. one premise (3) leads to one conclusion (2), which further leads to the final conclusion (1).

Now, lets look at the options:

(A) Banks are in essence businesses so their primary motive should be to make profits - doesn't relate to any premise.

(B) The costs of running a bank have gone up considerably in recent times - it talks about increase in the costs of bank, which could explain the reason that the banks might not have been able to pass on the benefits to the customers. Thus, it would counter the conclusion that the banks are favoring profits over customer welfare; since the banks have not been able to save money due to high costs, they could not pass the benefit to the customers. It basically attacks the starting premise (statement 3 above) by saying that the banks just can't reduce rates, due to high costs, not due to any other reason.

(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers - this can also counter the argument by attacking the second premise (statement 2 above). This option could counter the conclusion by saying that banks have indeed passed on the benefit of reserve ratio cut, by investing in improving banking experience, rather than through a rate cut. However, there is a slight difference. In the argument, the banking regulator is talking about recent cut in rates and passing of this cut to the customers. This option does not say that the banks have increased investments after the rate cut or in recent times; it just says that they still invest. So, there could have been no change in their investment from past. Thus, they might not have passed on the benefit of recent cut in rates. Unlike this, Option B specifically talks about 'recent' increase in costs. Thus, B more strongly counters the argument

(D) The sales of several high value products such as automobiles and homes have gone down because of the high interest rate charged on loans by banks - then they should have heeded the bankign regulator anf cut the rates :-D . This is irrelevant.

(E) Even publicly owned banks have not passed on the benefit of lower liquidity reserve ratio rates to their customers - Doesn't attack any premise. Introduces a new angle to the argument. Not relevant.

Cheers,
CJ


In your explanation of option choice C....you have very well pointed out the ambuity in the usage of STILL.
The use of word "Many banks" at start of the sentence made me to dump the option as the bank regulators are talking of the BANKS i.e. all the banks and when most banks are mentioned that means still there a few banks not providing customer services....hence the option can be dumped


Hi,
We can't really dump option C just because it talks about "Many banks". Lets suppose we keep the other options same and change option C as:
"Many banks have recently been investing considerable amounts of money in improving the banking experience of their customers"

Now, option C becomes as strong as option B; even marginally better than option B. Why? Because it directly attacks the conclusion that banks are favoring profits over consumer welfare. While option B also counters the conclusion by highlighting the inability of banks to pass on the benefits (sort of defensive way to argue in favor of banks), option C goes on offensive and directly counters the argument by saying that banks have indeed passed on the benefits of rate cuts by investing to improve banking experience of their customers.

Now, your point that the banking regulator is talking of all banks while option C talks of many banks.

If you read it minutely, you'll figure out that the apex banking regulator is not talking of all the banks, it is talking of banks in general. Suppose if it were saying that all banks are favoring profits over customer welfare. In that case, an argument "there is a bank X, which has recently been investing a lot of money in improving banking experience to its customers' would have been enough. Since, this statement effectively falsifies the stand of the regulator that no bank is favoring customer welfare.

However, in the given situation, the bank is talking about banks in general. Thus, we can't argue by talking of only one bank. We need to talk about 'some banks' or 'many banks' or 'almost all banks' or 'all banks'. Obviously, if we counter by saying that all banks have started investing...., the argument would be the strongest; however, even if we talk about 'many banks', our argument would still be very strong.

Consider this response: The regulators opinion that banks are favoring profits over customer welfare is unfounded, as is clear from the fact that many banks have recently been investing a lot of money to improve banking experience of their customers.

Don't you think the above counter-argument is strong?
_________________

If this post is helpful, think of giving KUDOS.

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 1884
Followers: 259

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2014, 23:52
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: The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that   [#permalink] 17 Jul 2014, 23:52
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 Local state regulations require that a company arindamsur 3 09 May 2014, 01:19
The State of Banking ryguy904 2 17 Feb 2009, 11:20
Banking regulators have seized a savings bank in Georgia and laxieqv 12 16 Sep 2007, 23:38
Banking regulators have seized a savings bank in Georgia and jlui4477 9 14 Mar 2006, 13:27
Our country s national bank has some autonomy regarding mohish 5 26 Sep 2005, 05:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The apex banking regulator in the country has stated that

  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®.