Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products. Ends 6/1
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- May 19
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep.... - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
msignatius
23 Dec 2025, 05:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
This one, in my opinion, is a classic case of "find something that fits, not something that fits perfectly".
I'll show you what I mean.
First, what the stem says: CBDCs will help reduce dependence on private banks because CBDCs are risk-free, allow people to hold funds directly with the state, which in turn will help in economic crises as during those times private banks can experience great instability. These reasons are backed to support the conclusion - "widespread adoption of CBDCs will enhance overall financial stability."
Here are a few assumptions as well the argument makes as well, that are better to state here, because the answer asks for a weakener and we don't want to accidentally pick an assumption:
- The government is more trusted during financial crises and considered risk-free.
- The government holds less risk of instability / bank runs during financial crises.
- The lack of risk is a strong enough reason to encourage people to shift away from commercial banks.
With all this delineation, we can look at the options to find the "most serious weakener"
A: Great, so the CBDC's product works well. Are we debating the quality of the product, though? Nope, we are debating its risk factors, advantages to people and the economy, and role during financial crises and in boosting financial stability. Eliminate.
B: This can actually just be a measure to improve stability, isn't it? The stem states that government banks are more stable, and if they restrict account limits to "avoid destabilizing commercial lending markets" that's a step towards stability. Eliminate.
C: This is just what is said by one of the assumptions I stated above - the argument seems to assume that people consider the government trustworthy in the first place and value that; but we can't use an assumption as fact. Even if we do, this is quite clearly a strengthener.
D: Private banks are taking measures to compete with the CBDC program? Call this a strengthener, in how the competition is accepting the merits of a program.
E: Now, this is the answer, but as I stated right at the start, "look for an answer that fits, even if not perfectly", you do see that we're talking about countries different from the country in the stem - and what happened there may not apply to us, but it is reasonable that if the general trend's been for people to keep their savings in private banks, thus nullifying the goals and compromising the benefits of CBDC, then this may as well work as weakener.
I'll show you what I mean.
First, what the stem says: CBDCs will help reduce dependence on private banks because CBDCs are risk-free, allow people to hold funds directly with the state, which in turn will help in economic crises as during those times private banks can experience great instability. These reasons are backed to support the conclusion - "widespread adoption of CBDCs will enhance overall financial stability."
Here are a few assumptions as well the argument makes as well, that are better to state here, because the answer asks for a weakener and we don't want to accidentally pick an assumption:
- The government is more trusted during financial crises and considered risk-free.
- The government holds less risk of instability / bank runs during financial crises.
- The lack of risk is a strong enough reason to encourage people to shift away from commercial banks.
With all this delineation, we can look at the options to find the "most serious weakener"
A: Great, so the CBDC's product works well. Are we debating the quality of the product, though? Nope, we are debating its risk factors, advantages to people and the economy, and role during financial crises and in boosting financial stability. Eliminate.
B: This can actually just be a measure to improve stability, isn't it? The stem states that government banks are more stable, and if they restrict account limits to "avoid destabilizing commercial lending markets" that's a step towards stability. Eliminate.
C: This is just what is said by one of the assumptions I stated above - the argument seems to assume that people consider the government trustworthy in the first place and value that; but we can't use an assumption as fact. Even if we do, this is quite clearly a strengthener.
D: Private banks are taking measures to compete with the CBDC program? Call this a strengthener, in how the competition is accepting the merits of a program.
E: Now, this is the answer, but as I stated right at the start, "look for an answer that fits, even if not perfectly", you do see that we're talking about countries different from the country in the stem - and what happened there may not apply to us, but it is reasonable that if the general trend's been for people to keep their savings in private banks, thus nullifying the goals and compromising the benefits of CBDC, then this may as well work as weakener.
Bunuel
23 Dec 2025, 06:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
The claim is that CBDCs will strengthen financial stability because people will move deposits from private banks to risk-free CBDC accounts reducing bank-run risk.
A.The statement was irrelevant to stability or deposit shifting.
B.The account limits may be put up, this makes the idea of large scale deposit shifting weak, it is not evidence.
C.It states a stronger interest in high trust region were support is not undermined.
D.It states that banks offer new features that could reduce deposit shifting but it does not directly show that CBDCs fails to move savings.
E. For this statement if savings remain in banks, the risk of bank runs is not reduced. Citizens use CBDCs for payments but keep savings in banks which directly undermines the reasoning.
A.The statement was irrelevant to stability or deposit shifting.
B.The account limits may be put up, this makes the idea of large scale deposit shifting weak, it is not evidence.
C.It states a stronger interest in high trust region were support is not undermined.
D.It states that banks offer new features that could reduce deposit shifting but it does not directly show that CBDCs fails to move savings.
E. For this statement if savings remain in banks, the risk of bank runs is not reduced. Citizens use CBDCs for payments but keep savings in banks which directly undermines the reasoning.
adityaprateek15
Joined: 26 May 2023
Last visit: 13 May 2026
Posts: 346
Given Kudos: 323
Location: India
Schools: Ross '26 Tepper '26 McCombs '26
GPA: 2.7
23 Dec 2025, 06:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
The entire argument relies on an important assumption that people will actually move their savings from private banks to CBDCs because of the perceived safety. But what if this doesn't happen? then the conclusion falls apart.
A. This choice actually strengthens the case for CBDC adoption. Eliminate.
B. This choice weakens the future action (what happens after people move their savings account). Eliminate.
C. This choice also strengthens the conclusion. Eliminate.
D. This choice shows that private banks are trying to retain their customers, but whether they have been successful is not specified. Eliminate.
E. This choice directly attacks the most critical link in the argument's chain. It provides actual evidence from initial setups stating that people are not switching as was expected. Correct.
A. This choice actually strengthens the case for CBDC adoption. Eliminate.
B. This choice weakens the future action (what happens after people move their savings account). Eliminate.
C. This choice also strengthens the conclusion. Eliminate.
D. This choice shows that private banks are trying to retain their customers, but whether they have been successful is not specified. Eliminate.
E. This choice directly attacks the most critical link in the argument's chain. It provides actual evidence from initial setups stating that people are not switching as was expected. Correct.
Bunuel
