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

It is currently 25 May 2015, 13:53

Today:

Free Access to GMAT Club Tests - May 25th for Memorial Day!!


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 excessive number of safety regulations that the federal

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
4 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 308 [4] , given: 18

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 29 Feb 2012, 14:15
4
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (02:25) correct 56% (01:31) wrong based on 504 sessions
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products



What's wrong with c?
I thought that since safety regulation codes are uinform, the size of companies doesn't matter, which weaken the argument above. (By the way, what are safety codes? :? )
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 128
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 2

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: PT #9 CR 7 The excessive number of safety regulations that t [#permalink] New post 29 Feb 2012, 15:01
" it says more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones
"

C safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company

does not do anything to weaken the conclusion

A provides the option that small businesses will go through pain as well since they dont have money
4 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 819
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 57

Kudos [?]: 297 [4] , given: 43

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: PT #9 CR 7 The excessive number of safety regulations that t [#permalink] New post 29 Feb 2012, 23:10
4
This post received
KUDOS
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products
What's wrong with c?
I thought that since safety regulation codes are uinform, the size of companies doesn't matter, which weaken the argument above. (By the way, what are safety codes? :? )


Choice C actually strengthen the argument because the effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size. This choice is the same kind with choice B

Choice D the larger size of companies, the more profits those companies get. => not really relate to the complex operation and money for requirement in term of positive effects to the large companies

Choice E is the same with D

Choice A states that, the ability of small companies to reverse capital If the policy changes happen is worse than that of big ones. So, small companies will get more hurts.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 397
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 13

Re: PT #9 CR 7 The excessive number of safety regulations that t [#permalink] New post 01 Mar 2012, 02:05
The problem with C is it neither supports small companies nor the large companies. It seems to have a neutral stand with respect to the argument. So, it cannot weaken the argument. Per LR Bible, the weaken statements must destroy the argument.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.49
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 45

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2013, 20:40
The conclusion of the argument is given in the first sentence. "The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones."
The argument would be weakened if the options would negate the conclusion i.e. the regulations must prove more harmful to the smaller businesses than the bigger ones.
A gives a perfect reason for negation. Rest all do not influence the argument in that way.
C is out of scope as there is no mention of safety codes in the argument.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2013
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2013, 08:51
I still don't understand.
"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " Well if they have more money reserved for this (option A) that wont change the money the large companies will spend and the complexity operations they will have to alter. Having money reserved simply will not have the same impact for them than for the small companies.
Why you guys are only talking about "serious hardships" as they are related with the difficulty that the companies have to pay in contrast with the amount of money they have to pay and the complexity of the operations they have to change? That's what is this about, its explained in the last sentence.
Option A doens't weaken the last sentence. Why am I wrong?
5 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 80
Concentration: Sustainability, International Business
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 42 [5] , given: 2

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2013, 09:48
5
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
crashkeeper wrote:
I still don't understand.
"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " Well if they have more money reserved for this (option A) that wont change the money the large companies will spend and the complexity operations they will have to alter. Having money reserved simply will not have the same impact for them than for the small companies.
Why you guys are only talking about "serious hardships" as they are related with the difficulty that the companies have to pay in contrast with the amount of money they have to pay and the complexity of the operations they have to change? That's what is this about, its explained in the last sentence.
Option A doens't weaken the last sentence. Why am I wrong?


"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " - This is the premise (notice the word 'since')

We need to focus on the conclusion which states that: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.
That is why the focus is on "serious hardships" and argument concludes that its harder for big businesses than small ones. Since we need to weaken this, we need to show that small businesses also face serious hardships.
Choice A is the only option that states that small companies are less likely to have capital reserves (which means less money for long term capital investment) which means they would face also face serious hardships just like large companies face.

Hope this helps!
_________________

Kudos if I helped :)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Posts: 32
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q45 V35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 47

CAT Tests
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 02 Dec 2013, 08:15
igotthis wrote:
crashkeeper wrote:
I still don't understand.
"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " Well if they have more money reserved for this (option A) that wont change the money the large companies will spend and the complexity operations they will have to alter. Having money reserved simply will not have the same impact for them than for the small companies.
Why you guys are only talking about "serious hardships" as they are related with the difficulty that the companies have to pay in contrast with the amount of money they have to pay and the complexity of the operations they have to change? That's what is this about, its explained in the last sentence.
Option A doens't weaken the last sentence. Why am I wrong?


"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " - This is the premise (notice the word 'since')

We need to focus on the conclusion which states that: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.
That is why the focus is on "serious hardships" and argument concludes that its harder for big businesses than small ones. Since we need to weaken this, we need to show that small businesses also face serious hardships.
Choice A is the only option that states that small companies are less likely to have capital reserves (which means less money for long term capital investment) which means they would face also face serious hardships just like large companies face.

Hope this helps!



Hello,

Please help to clear my confusion!!!!

Conclusion - The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.

We should look for answer choice that do not imply MORE serious hardships for big businesses. It includes either same hardship or less hardship.

Choice A: It implies More hardship on small business than on large business. Agree (Weaken the argument)

Choice B: It implies equal hardship on both the business. Then, why it is not the correct Ans ???

Thanks
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 347
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 61

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 03 Dec 2013, 10:42
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products


Premise- large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements[/color]

Conclusion- The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.

complex operations + more money spend ---> hardship

but , if you dont have reserves for improvement as in case of small companies-----> hardship increased

Hence 'A'.

c) safety regulation codes are uniformly established ------> proportionally same effort on behalf of both... large/ small companies. hence wrong.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 60
Location: India
GPA: 3.7
WE: Business Development (Retail Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 4

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 04 Dec 2013, 09:35
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.


New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.



Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.
3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 178
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 10 [3] , given: 82

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 21 Apr 2014, 16:03
3
This post received
KUDOS
Abhishek009 wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.


New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.



Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.


Isn't that a weakener what you just said 'if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.-- this would mean that won't have to shed so much for the change. WEAKENS.
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 657
Followers: 259

Kudos [?]: 439 [2] , given: 5

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 22 Apr 2014, 14:09
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
gauravkaushik8591 wrote:
Abhishek009 wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.


New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.



Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.


Isn't that a weakener what you just said 'if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.-- this would mean that won't have to shed so much for the change. WEAKENS.


D strengthens the argument that these regulation changes pose more hardships for larger businesses because less of their profits can be dedicated to comply with new regulations. Whereas small companies could devote 100% of profits to change, larger companies would have a smaller percentage available to spend because the funds are already dedicated to other businesses.

KW
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


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



Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 464
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 58

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 02 Jul 2014, 20:51
KyleWiddison wrote:
gauravkaushik8591 wrote:
New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.



Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.


Isn't that a weakener what you just said 'if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.-- this would mean that won't have to shed so much for the change. WEAKENS.


D strengthens the argument that these regulation changes pose more hardships for larger businesses because less of their profits can be dedicated to comply with new regulations. Whereas small companies could devote 100% of profits to change, larger companies would have a smaller percentage available to spend because the funds are already dedicated to other businesses.

KW[/quote]
Hi Kyle,

Can you explain what's wrong with B?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 298
Schools: Cambridge'16
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 32

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 05 Jul 2014, 20:13
The conclusion say that there is no matter where you get money (in reserves as A says or your uncle gives you) the larger companies spend money more than small companies because more operations. Answer B says that the operations the same that means that the same money.

for me B
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 657
Followers: 259

Kudos [?]: 439 [1] , given: 5

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2014, 10:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
ronr34 wrote:
Hi Kyle,

Can you explain what's wrong with B?


B is a tempting answer here. It states that the underlying technologies are the same for both large and small companies, leading us to potentially believe that the hardships will be the same for both - thus weakening the answer. Let's go back to the argument and read it very carefully. It states that "Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations...". The premise is pointing to the fact that due to the scale of the operations of large companies (not the technology used), large companies have more complex, and difficult to change, operations. Think of it this way: bicycles and BMWs run on the same "technology" (a motor making wheels go around), but the BMW is much more complex and therefore much more difficult and costly to change. Even though B is a tempting answer, it is not our strongest choice for weakening the conclusion.

KW
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


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



Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 189
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 48

CAT Tests
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 17 May 2015, 06:57
tuanquang269 wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products
What's wrong with c?
I thought that since safety regulation codes are uinform, the size of companies doesn't matter, which weaken the argument above. (By the way, what are safety codes? :? )


Choice C actually strengthen the argument because the effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size. This choice is the same kind with choice B

Choice D the larger size of companies, the more profits those companies get. => not really relate to the complex operation and money for requirement in term of positive effects to the large companies

Choice E is the same with D

Choice A states that, the ability of small companies to reverse capital If the policy changes happen is worse than that of big ones. So, small companies will get more hurts.

I am still not able to rule out C.If effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size,then why big companies will face hardship?
However,I understood that A is also contender.
Expert Post
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 657
Followers: 259

Kudos [?]: 439 [0], given: 5

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink] New post 23 May 2015, 20:27
Expert's post
ssriva2 wrote:
I am still not able to rule out C.If effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size,then why big companies will face hardship?
However,I understood that A is also contender.


Let me see if I can clarify C a bit. C states that the regulations "codes" are uniform without regard to company size. It doesn't say the effect of the changes is the same. Let's say there is a code that requires all vehicles to accelerate to 60 miles per hour and then come to a stop in less than 300 feet. That would be a reasonable task for a small, two-door car. For a large, fully-loaded tanker truck, however, this would be a much harder task. Back to our question - if the code is the same and doesn't have any adjustments for size the changes could easily create larger hardships for larger organizations. This would strengthen the argument.

KW
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


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



Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal   [#permalink] 23 May 2015, 20:27
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 Experts publish their posts in the topic Many critics claim that federally mandated car safety sajini 4 17 Sep 2012, 04:12
Experts publish their posts in the topic Federal regulations require that corporations use separate noboru 13 02 Aug 2009, 11:19
Experts publish their posts in the topic Federal regulations require that corporations use separate prasun84 10 19 Nov 2008, 10:45
33 Experts publish their posts in the topic Federal regulations require that corporations use separate zonk 50 16 Aug 2008, 06:10
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal YHP 8 15 Aug 2007, 16:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal

  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®.