Three large companies and seven small companies currently : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 11:21

### 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

# Three large companies and seven small companies currently

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 101
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 13:01
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

75% (02:51) correct 25% (01:36) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications. If the government regulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturing specifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere. In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?

A. None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.
B. It would cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a new set of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the production lines of the large companies.
C. Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.
D. Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.
E. None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 931
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 13:22
stevegt wrote:
Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications. If the government regulates the industry, it will institute a single set of manufacturing specifications to which all ten companies will have to adhere. In this case, therefore, since none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?

A. None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.
B. It would cost more to convert the production lines of the small companies to a new set of manufacturing specifications than it would to convert the production lines of the large companies.
C. Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.
D. Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.
E. None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated.

Okay I think the answer is E. What is the OA?

Last edited by beckee529 on 01 Aug 2007, 13:27, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 13:24
I would say E

In the assumption question it is recommended to tie to the conclusion. Here, E states that small companies' specifications are different from government ones. Therefore, it would lead to the conclusion that all seven companies would have to change specifications if government decided to change them, which appears to be costly. Choice E fills in the gap between premise and conclusion.

E. None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government would institute if the industry were to be regulated
Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 215
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 14:04
E.
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 101
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 14:30
what's wrong with C?
IMO C acts like a defender of the argument and it could pass the nagtion test.
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 174
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 14:36
stevegt wrote:
what's wrong with C?
IMO C acts like a defender of the argument and it could pass the nagtion test.

I think it's because the argument is stating a hypothetical situation. "If the gov't regulates the industry..." If the lobbyists are able to dissuade the gov't, the hypothetical situation might still be true.
Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 215
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 14:36
stevegt wrote:
what's wrong with C?
IMO C acts like a defender of the argument and it could pass the nagtion test.

C goes completely out of context. According to the statement, if the industry is regulated then seven compalnies will shut down. so E clearly provides assumption that they do make nothing of the required standards.
Hope it helps.
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2007, 15:43
Straight E.
C is outside the scope of this argument...What industry lobbists do is irrelevant...The argument is based on a period when the industry regulation is there.
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 65
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 49

Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2014, 06:40
Hi Chiranjeev,

Keeping the conclusion in mind ,which is Three large companies will remain in business and seven won't because small company won't be able to afford to convert the production line as per new specification issued by govt.

just want to check how to negate the option A.

My attempt,

All of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate
the manufacture of the product.

and its like negating the premise. based on which i eliminated this option.

Is my negation technique is right ?

Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 7

Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2014, 09:20
Nitinaka19 wrote:
Hi Chiranjeev,

Keeping the conclusion in mind ,which is Three large companies will remain in business and seven won't because small company won't be able to afford to convert the production line as per new specification issued by govt.

just want to check how to negate the option A.

My attempt,

All of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does regulate
the manufacture of the product.

and its like negating the premise. based on which i eliminated this option.

Is my negation technique is right ?

Hey Nitin

My bit on this-

I'm afraid to say but your negation of A doesn't seem right to me. Negation of 'none' means that 'none is not true' . 'None of the companies' means 'zero companies'. How would you say that 'companies' count is not zero'?

You can say that at least one of the companies will go out of business...

A talks about the scenario in which government does not regulate the manufacture of the product; however the argument is concerned with the scenario in which it does. Interestingly in your negation, you have mentioned the correct scenario but that's not what answer choice says. It seems you misread the option.

A. None of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

Argument: Three large companies and seven small companies currently manufacture a product with potential military applications. If the government regulates the industry, ...

Thus, as option A talks about a situation that is not related to the discussion in the argument, this choice is irrelevant.

Does it help?
Dolly

Last edited by DollyS on 20 May 2014, 09:45, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 65
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 49

Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2014, 09:44
Hi Dolly

Thanks for your response, First of all i totally agree with your point that we are discussing about what will happen when govt does regulate , So discussing about what will happen when govt does not regulate would be out of scope.

Now coming to the negation of option A

what i suppose where i made a mistake is , whenever we have this kind of sentence structure, Will should not negate the modifier part and in this case it is if the govt..... product.

So the correct negation would be

None (SOME or At least one) of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

Bracket part is the negated word.

Yes it surely helped me.

Thanks
Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 7

Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2014, 09:55
Nitinaka19 wrote:
Hi Dolly

Thanks for your response, First of all i totally agree with your point that we are discussing about what will happen when govt does regulate , So discussing about what will happen when govt does not regulate would be out of scope.

Now coming to the negation of option A

what i suppose where i made a mistake is , whenever we have this kind of sentence structure, Will should not negate the modifier part and in this case it is if the govt..... product.

So the correct negation would be

None (SOME or At least one) of the three large companies will go out of business if the government does not regulate the manufacture of the product.

Bracket part is the negated word.

Yes it surely helped me.

Thanks

Thanks for the response!

You negated this option twice then. You're absolutely right! We shouldn't negate the modifier part.

You seem to be on right path! Keep it rolling!!
Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently   [#permalink] 20 May 2014, 09:55
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A small company with a radical four-day 3 25 Oct 2015, 00:54
1 A company that invests the necessary infrastructure in a large 2 08 Aug 2015, 01:52
20 Three large companies and seven small companies currently 17 10 Oct 2008, 18:04
Most cable television companies currently require customers 9 13 May 2008, 21:18
Q38: Three large companies and seven small companies 9 08 Jun 2007, 08:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by