Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 05:46 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 05:46

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Difficulty: 555-605 Levelx   Weakenx               
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 61
Own Kudos [?]: 195 [86]
Given Kudos: 109
GPA: 3.92
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5650 [10]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64892 [10]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2013
Posts: 60
Own Kudos [?]: 28 [5]
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
1
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Simple weaken question,
A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.--- Information about bank failure at current time point is not available in the argument.. Eliminate.

B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.---- Correct. Previously, more failure were happened when government not insured the deposits.

C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.--- Not correct.

D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed this limit.---- Not make sense.. Does not weaken the argument.

E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.---- loan position will not effect much and irrelevant.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2017
Status:GMAT tutor
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 53 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
GMAT 1: 770 Q49 V47
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
1
Kudos
mihir0710 wrote:
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals’ bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?
(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.
(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.
(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed this limit.
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve


Our job is to weaken the economist's argument. His conclusion is: Government insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures. If this conclusion is true then the addition of government insurance must have caused an increase in bank failures and removing this insurance should result in fewer bank failures.

Answer choice (B) is the best answer. This is the one that suggests that without government insurance, bank failures occurred frequently. It implies that government insurance has reduced the high rate of bank failures.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 61
Own Kudos [?]: 195 [0]
Given Kudos: 109
GPA: 3.92
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
The assumption version of this question can be found here: bank-depositors-in-the-united-states-are-all-financially-63628.html
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1261
Own Kudos [?]: 1238 [0]
Given Kudos: 1207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

For solution provided by eliaslatour

Quote:
Our job is to weaken the economist's argument. His conclusion is: Government insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures. If this conclusion is true then the addition of government insurance must have caused an increase in bank failures and removing this insurance should result in fewer bank failures.


If I pay close attention to word partly that means something else is responsible for high rate of bank failures?

Does not (E) fit more correctly?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5650 [0]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
adkikani wrote:

If I pay close attention to word partly that means something else is responsible for high rate of bank failures?

Does not (E) fit more correctly?


the argument is not concerned with things about the banks themselves that make the banks more susceptible to failure; rather, it is concerned with the behavior of the banks' depositors. more like think from your prospective. you are a customer in a bank. Hope you see it though. Ask any specific questions, if needed.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 May 2017
Posts: 59
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?

(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.

(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.

(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.

(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed this limit.

(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.


B seems to be the best ans for this. E talks about security of bank against failure and we don't know how much assets and how much risks the loans involve.Our argument talks about the insurance provided by the govt to the depositors. So if we show that without insurance also there were failures then our argument will break and this is what B does.
Hope my reasoning is correct.if not , I am happy to learn
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Jun 2019
Posts: 52
Own Kudos [?]: 59 [0]
Given Kudos: 74
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
StoicBread wrote:
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?

(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.

(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.

(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.

(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed this limit.

(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.

Similar question: LINK


OA is option B.
the argument clearly mentions that the insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures.
Option B says that the frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures even in the absence of insurance.

I know that by giving a different cause for an effect, we can weaken the argument.
But in this case, when one cause is partly responsible , is the above statement still valid ?
VeritasKarishma
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Mar 2020
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 81
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
Can someone explain what the statement means ? " …., since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money. "

I got B ,but admitted that I failed to capture the statement.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Status:In learning mode...
Posts: 156
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Send PM
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
Hi, ThatDudeKnows

there is a lot going on in the argument.
Can you help me with choice B and E,
As per the argument- Insurance are partly reponsible for --> bank failures

In B, without insiance--> bank failures were happening frequently!
ok good weakner

In E, Security of failure depends on 2 irrelevent things but not on insurance.
hence there no way we can say- insurance is partly responsible. insurance is not
even in the equation here. good weakner!

what wrong?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2020
Posts: 252
Own Kudos [?]: 116 [0]
Given Kudos: 218
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
Dinesh654 wrote:
Hi, ThatDudeKnows

there is a lot going on in the argument.
Can you help me with choice B and E,
As per the argument- Insurance are partly reponsible for --> bank failures

In B, without insiance--> bank failures were happening frequently!
ok good weakner

In E, Security of failure depends on 2 irrelevent things but not on insurance.
hence there no way we can say- insurance is partly responsible. insurance is not
even in the equation here. good weakner!

what wrong?


Dear Dinesh654,
per B option your explanation is valid.
Concerning the E
Quote:
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.

Take into consideration that we do not need any explanation from what factors security hinges upon.
Conclusion provides strong "cause and effect" relationships stick to it.

Insurance - > Bank Failure

The option B provide another explanation that, indeed, the alternative cause is responsible for the effect.
Depositors' fears - > Bank Failure

Hope it helps
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17211
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne