Although inflated government spending for weapons research encourages

Question

Although inflated government spending for weapons research encourages waste at weapons research laboratories, weapons production plants must be viewed as equally wasteful of taxpayer dollars. After all, by the government’s own admission, the weapons plant it plans to reopen will violate at least 69 environmental, health, and safety laws. The government has decided to reopen the plant and exempt it from compliance, even though the weapons to be produced there could be produced at the same cost at a safer facility.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) It offers no evidence that the “safer” alternative production site actually complies with any of the laws mentioned.

(B) It concedes a point regarding weapons research laboratories that undermines its conclusion about weapons production plants.

(C) It relies on evidence that does not directly address the issue of wasteful spending.

(D) It confuses necessary expenditures for research with wasteful spending on weapons.

(E) It fails to establish that research laboratories and weapons production plants are similar enough to be meaningfully compared.

daagh · Answer

All the wasteful expeditures on weapon production are sought to be justified by the argument that unless a country has those defence prouction capablites at beck and call, the country is vulnerable to attack by the enemy countries. So every country would want to indulge in heavy weapon production whehter they can afford it or not. The countries reliance on factors that are least concerned with the health, safety and the real need is the biggest element of opposition to weapon production.

C brigs out this aspect explicitly.

C brigs out this aspect explicitly.

Samran · Answer

But isn't the conclusion comparing the weapons research facility with the manufacturing facility in wastefulness and then argument never talks about the research facility. option E talks about the same.

achbaa · Answer

So, here is my take:

Argument : Laboratories are wasteful, but so are production plants. Production plants are wasteful because the new plant will not follow regulations, which another plant could have followed.

The weakness  - The argument does not explain how not following regulations is equal to wastefulness.

C

Harshani · Answer

Argument:
1) Inflated government spending encourages taxpayers' money
2) Reopening plants will violate 69 environmental, health and safety laws
3) The weapons could be produced at a safer plant at same cost
____
Therefore (4) Weapons production plants must be viewed as equally wastefull (from 1-3)

Did I summarise the argument correctly?

Fdambro294 · Answer

Conclusion:
Production plants are wasteful of tax payer dollars.

Supporting evidence provided:
The production plants do not comply with safety regulations.

What does noncompliance with safety regulations have to do with the supposed wastefulness of these plants?

Thus, C is the answer. The evidence doesn’t address the stated conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

HarishKumar · Answer

The conclusion (assertion) in the first sentence talks about the wastefulness of weapons production plants. The argument then provides evidence to "support" the conclusion in the form of weapons production plants not complying with environmental, health and safety laws.

But there is no mention (explicit or implicit) of how non-compliance of environmental, health and safety laws contributes to wasteful expenditure.

Hence, the answer is  Choice C .

Elite097 · Answer

Argument structure:

Premise 1: Weapons research labs waste taxpayer dollars because inflated gov. spending encourages waste.

Premise 2: The government will reopen a weapons production plant that violates 69 safety and environmental laws, and they’ll exempt it from compliance.

Premise 3: The same weapons could be produced elsewhere at the same cost but more safely.

Conclusion: Weapons production plants must be viewed as equally wasteful as research labs.

Vulnerability:

The conclusion is about wasteful spending, but the evidence given about the plant is mainly about safety and environmental violations, not about cost or inefficiency. The only cost mention is that another plant could produce at the same cost, which doesn’t prove wastefulness of this plant — it just proves safety issues.

So, the flaw is: The argument relies on evidence that doesn’t directly address wasteful spending.

✅ Correct Answer: (C)

Although inflated government spending for weapons research encourages

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

Although inflated government spending for weapons research encourages

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