A proposed law would prohibit any individual who has been employed as

Question

A proposed law would prohibit any individual who has been employed as a lobbyist on behalf of a particular industry from serving as the director of a government agency charged with regulating that same industry. The purpose of the proposed law is to prevent conflicts of interest. However, if passed, the law would prove counterproductive because it would prevent individuals who are knowledgeable about industries from serving as government regulators.

The argument above depends most directly on which of the following assumptions?

(A) The individuals in government that hold the power to enact the proposed law are susceptible to influence on the part of industry lobbyists.

(B) Government has a legitimate role to play in the regulation of most industries.

(C) Only individuals who have served as lobbyists on behalf of an industry are knowledgeable about that industry.

(D) Those who have served as lobbyists on behalf of an industry are capable of objective, unbiased decisions as regulators.

(E) The primary objective of government regulation of industry should be to strengthen and support that industry

Source:  Master GMAT

sonalgmat123 · Accepted Answer

D seems to be a valid answer it favors those people who has served as lobbyists on behalf of the industry and thus a proper assumption to arrive at the conclusion

Sushil117 · Answer

(A) The individuals in government that hold the power to enact the proposed law are susceptible to influence on the part of industry lobbyists.
IMO correct as if it weren't the case,there would be no need to bring the law as the individuals will be just and unbiased

(B) Government has a legitimate role to play in the regulation of most industries.
out of scope

(C) Only individuals who have served as lobbyists on behalf of an industry are knowledgeable about that industry.
extreme ,incorrect

(D) Those who have served as lobbyists on behalf of an industry are capable of objective, unbiased decisions as regulators.
if this were the case,bringing in the law would be useless.so ,incorrect

(E) The primary objective of government regulation of industry should be to strengthen and support that industry
out of scope

winterschool · Answer

A proposed law would prohibit any individual who has been employed as a lobbyist on behalf of a particular industry from serving as the director of a government agency charged with regulating that same industry. The purpose of the proposed law is to prevent conflicts of interest. However, if passed, the law would prove counterproductive because it would prevent individuals who are knowledgeable about industries from serving as government regulators.

The argument above depends most directly on which of the following assumptions?

(A) The individuals in government that hold the power to enact the proposed law are susceptible to influence on the part of industry lobbyists.  Incorrect

(B) Government has a legitimate role to play in the regulation of most industries.  Irrelevant

(C) Only individuals who have served as lobbyists on behalf of an industry are knowledgeable about that industry.  Correct

it supports argument conclusion, if only lobbyists are knowledgeable and they cant serve as the director of a government agency in that industry then the law should be counterproductive

(D) Those who have served as lobbyists on behalf of an industry are capable of objective, unbiased decisions as regulators.  Incorrect

it supports conclusion

(E) The primary objective of government regulation of industry should be to strengthen and support that industry  Irrelevant

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

The argument’s conclusion, stated in the passage’s final sentence, is true only if it is also true that the government has no other choice but to turn to former industry lobbyists if it wants to find knowledgeable regulators. (This is the assumption that  choice (C)  provides.) If such people are available elsewhere—for example, among university professors—then the conclusion is faulty.

The correct answer is (C).

JuniqueLid · Answer

Think the OA (C) is flawed.
(C) is too extreme and not necessary for the argument. Even if other people are knowledgeable (i.e. negation of the statement), removing former lobbyists from the pool still reduces the number of knowledgeable candidates, which could make regulation less effective. The argument can hold without assuming exclusivity — it only needs to assume that former lobbyists are a valuable part of the talent pool.
(D) is a better assumption. Because if former lobbyists are biased, then excluding them isn't necessarily counterproductive. In other words, if they’re inherently biased, then losing their expertise might be a worthwhile trade-off for protecting the integrity of regulation.
Experts please help clarify.  Bunuel

A proposed law would prohibit any individual who has been employed as

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A proposed law would prohibit any individual who has been employed as

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards