An economist has argued that consumers often benefit when government

Will option B, be eliminated because it is assumption? The choice presents a condition in which a corporation passing the fruits of at least some of its investments on to consumers is necessary

We're looking to strengthen the argument that "consumers often benefit when government permits a corporation to obtain a monopoly."

(B) tells us that monopolies ONLY benefit consumers in one specific scenario. That actually limits the argument that consumers benefit under monopolies. If (B) did the opposite thing -- by, for instance, giving us a whole bunch of scenarios under which monopolies benefit consumers -- then maybe (B) would strengthen the argument. As written, though, it just limits the argument.

Eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja

This one literally annoyed me. I don't understand why we chose (C) over (A) & (B). Below is my approach, request you to take a look at it..

Stimulus breakdown:

P1: Without competition, a corporation can raise prices
P2: corporation invest in expensive research or industrial infrastructure, passing the fruits of these investments on to consumers.

Conclusion: consumers often benefit when government permits a corporation monopoly.

we have to address the gap between premise ''expensive research or ....'' and conclusion ''consumer benefit''

This Gap is addressed in all A, B, and C. All options fulfills If Premise then conclusion, right?
Even if ''A'' talks about the comparison and ''B'' brings the necessary condition, they still talk about the GAP, then why should i choose C over A & B?

(A) The benefits to consumers are typically greater if a corporation invests in expensive research or industrial infrastructure than if that corporation spends the same amount of money in any other way.

(B) The government's permitting a corporation to obtain a monopoly is advantageous for consumers only if that corporation passes the fruits of at least some of its investments on to consumers.

(C) If a corporation obtains a monopoly, the disadvantage to consumers of any higher prices will be outweighed by the advantages from extra investments in expensive research or industrial infrastructure made by that corporation.


Thanks
ASHUTOSH

An economist has argued that consumers often benefit when government permits a corporation to obtain a monopoly. Without competition, a corporation can raise prices without spending nearly as much on advertising. The corporation can then invest the extra money in expensive research or industrial infrastructure that it could not otherwise afford, passing the fruits of these investments on to consumers.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist's argument?

(A) The benefits to consumers are typically greater if a corporation invests in expensive research or industrial infrastructure than if that corporation spends the same amount of money in any other way. - WRONG. The comparison is not at all required as it does not impact the conclusion. Even a nimble benefit is a benefit to consumers. More so, It is assuming that there are benefits to consumers if a corporation invests the same amount of money in any other way. We are not sure whether there is benefit or not at first place - this may sound nitpicking.

(B) The government's permitting a corporation to obtain a monopoly is advantageous for consumers only if that corporation passes the fruits of at least some of its investments on to consumers. - WRONG. Not explicitly wrong but it is an assumption, not a necessary one but sufficient. Has C not been among the choice or not been like it is then i would have chosen B.

(C) If a corporation obtains a monopoly, the disadvantage to consumers of any higher prices will be outweighed by the advantages from extra investments in expensive research or industrial infrastructure made by that corporation. - CORRECT. If no then conclusion stands to lose.

(D) Even if a corporation is not permitted to obtain a monopoly, it typically invests some money in expensive research or industrial infrastructure. - WRONG. Irrelevant as it's beyond passage's scope.

(E) If obtaining a monopoly enables a corporation to raise its prices and invest less money in advertising, that corporation will almost inevitably do so. - WRONG. Yes, then what!! How consumers are benefitted? This choice does not answer that.

Sorry for the delay!

There's actually another "gap" in the logic: even if there are benefits from the research/infrastructure investments, do those benefits outweigh the increase in price? If not, then who cares about the benefits?

(A) and (B) might help strengthen the fact that the research/infrastructure investments will lead to advantages for the consumers, but only (C) allows us to conclude that those advantages will outweigh the increase in price. Without that part, (A) and (B) don't matter, so (C) is the best one.

I hope that helps!­­