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

It is currently 22 Jul 2014, 06:10

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

Three large companies and seven small companies currently

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 41 [2] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink] New post 10 Oct 2008, 18:04
2
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (low)

Question Stats:

71% (02:13) correct 29% (01:37) wrong based on 329 sessions
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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Zarrolou on 10 Aug 2013, 05:27, edited 1 time in total.
Added OA.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1048
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 260 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR [#permalink] New post 10 Oct 2008, 19:46
vksunder 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.


Is it E ? If we negate E, the argument that "none of the 7 small companies will remain in the business" will not hold good.
_________________

"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg

Check out my GMAT blog - GMAT Tips and Strategies

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 840
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR [#permalink] New post 10 Oct 2008, 22:46
E
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1406
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR [#permalink] New post 11 Oct 2008, 06:10
vksunder 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. -> govt will regulate and we are to discuss about its effects !!
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. -> out of scope
C. Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry. -> OOS
D. Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures. -> OOS
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. -> This is PERFECT since if this were not true surely the argument falls apart


IMO E
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 376
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR [#permalink] New post 11 Oct 2008, 14:19
OA - E. But could someplease explain what is wring with B.

Amitdgr - THe conclusion is also weakened if you negate B. What say?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 186
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR [#permalink] New post 11 Oct 2008, 18:36
From B we cannot conclude if small companies can afford that or not. It may cost more but it may be affordable.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 2
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: CR [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2013, 00:01
vksunder wrote:
OA - E. But could someplease explain what is wring with B.

Amitdgr - THe conclusion is also weakened if you negate B. What say?


Cost is not a factor here and it is nowhere discussed in argument.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 28
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-07-2013
GPA: 3.33
WE: Consulting (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 13

Re: CR [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2013, 02:25
vksunder wrote:
OA - E. But could someplease explain what is wring with B.

Amitdgr - THe conclusion is also weakened if you negate B. What say?


If you negate B, it would only mean that the cost of replacement is either same for both small and large companies or higher for larger companies. The affordability of replacement is being compared instead of the absolute cost of replacement.

Larger companies, assuming they are cash rich, can bear higher cost of replacement and would still see smaller companies exit the market since they couldn't bear even a lower replacement cost!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 169
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 1245

CAT Tests
Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2014, 16:28
three-large-companies-and-seven-small-companies-currently-71477.html

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 if new set of manufacturing specifications, only the three large companies will be able to remain in business.

Notes
10 companies make a product
Govt will place requirements on the industry.
7 companies can't afford any change
Only 3 big companies will stay in business

ASU:
7 companies can't combine
3 companies can afford the change
Other factors resulting from change won't shut the 3 companies down.

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.

Wrong:
If the government doesn't regulate the industry isn't an issue.

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.

Wrong (and a trap):
Conversion costs between companies isn't an issue.

C. Industry lobbyists will be unable to dissuade the government from regulating the industry.

Wrong:
Lobbyists are not part of argument.

D. Assembly of the product produced according to government manufacturing specifications would be more complex than current assembly procedures.

Wrong:
Out of scope. We don't care about complexity, but about cost.

E. None of the seven small companies currently manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the governm

Correct:
If the seven companies meet the governments requirements, then they wouldn't go out of business.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 4
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 07-18-2014
GPA: 3.53
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 3

Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink] New post 28 Apr 2014, 08:25
It is clearly stated in premise - "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".

So my question is,-

1) In case of answer choice B - Only if the cost is higher then only we have the question of affordability, which the 7 small companies cannot bear. Thus B should be the answer.

2) In case of answer choice E - It is possible that small companies does not manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government. And 7 small companies might have to upgrade their production lines. Now the question should be if the upgradation is affordable or not for the smaller companies. If any smaller companies can bear the cost then they will remain in the competition.

The colclusion is - "the 7 small companies will be out of the competition."So when the small companies will be out of compitition only if they cannot afford the upgradation. And in the premise author already predicts that the 7 small companies will be out of the compition. Thus the author is sure that the small companies will have to upgrade. Thus I think E shouldn't be right.
Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1732
Followers: 1184

Kudos [?]: 3127 [0], given: 176

Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently [#permalink] New post 07 May 2014, 08:25
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hi

Let me share my two cents here.

I believe the fundamental point you missed in the argument was that none of the seven small companies can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications. The cost of conversion here is not important. Even if the cost of conversion is very low, the argument tells us that small companies can’t afford to convert.

DoNow wrote:
It is clearly stated in premise - "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".

So my question is,-

1) In case of answer choice B - Only if the cost is higher then only we have the question of affordability, which the 7 small companies cannot bear. Thus B should be the answer.


B tells us that Conversion of small companies would be more expensive than that of large. But whatever the cost of conversion is (higher or lower than that of big companies), we already know from the passage that none of the 7 small companies can afford the conversion. Thus, B doesn’t affect the argument and thus, can’t be the correct choice.

DoNow wrote:
2) In case of answer choice E - It is possible that small companies does not manufactures the product to a set of specifications that would match those the government. And 7 small companies might have to upgrade their production lines. Now the question should be if the upgradation is affordable or not for the smaller companies. If any smaller companies can bear the cost then they will remain in the competition.

The colclusion is - "the 7 small companies will be out of the competition."So when the small companies will be out of compitition only if they cannot afford the upgradation. And in the premise author already predicts that the 7 small companies will be out of the compition. Thus the author is sure that the small companies will have to upgrade. Thus I think E shouldn't be right.


The conclusion is that 7 small companies will be out of competition BECAUSE none of them can afford to convert their production lines to a new set of manufacturing specifications.

The author claims that small companies would go out of competition as they can’t afford. However, he doesn’t consider the scenario in which a small company might have already been working as per govt specification. In this case, the company doesn’t need to convert. Therefore, in this scenario, a small company may continue to exist. It means that the conclusion will not hold if option E is negated. Thus, option E is a required assumption and hence, the correct answer.

Does this help?

Dolly
_________________



Free Webinar: July 26, 2014 - Ace GMAT RC: Register for this Free Webinar to learn how to apply the Reading Strategies critical to ace the GMAT Reading Comprehension. Click here to register.

Re: Three large companies and seven small companies currently   [#permalink] 07 May 2014, 08:25
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A report by Bain and Company states that small companies akhil911 1 25 Mar 2014, 09:25
Experts publish their posts in the topic Small Company vs Big Company Job experience syalaman 1 21 Dec 2011, 21:03
Experts publish their posts in the topic Small Company vs Big Company Job experience syalaman 1 21 Dec 2011, 15:02
Three large companies and seven small companies currently stevegt 11 01 Aug 2007, 13:01
Q38: Three large companies and seven small companies jet1445 9 08 Jun 2007, 08:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Three large companies and seven small companies currently

  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®.