It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 05:55

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 130

Kudos [?]: 33 [1], given: 0

Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2008, 12:18
1
KUDOS
14
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (01:28) correct 48% (01:53) wrong based on 3854 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increase correspondingly

(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansino would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.

(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.

(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.

(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 33 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1476

Kudos [?]: 757 [20], given: 6

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2010, 12:13
20
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I picked the wrong OA too.....but after reading thru the explanation I understand that I was wrong.

The premise mean to say that as more money is deposited in such
accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers ( business borrowers).

Now A says that as personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.....the important point here is that consumer borrowing is different from business borrowing

The government is intending to increase retirement savings so that businesses can borrow but what if because of increase in retirement savings end consumers borrowing also increases correspondingly....this will defeat the purpose of the plan.

Kudos [?]: 757 [20], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 165

Kudos [?]: 201 [19], given: 3

Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 14:42
19
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Fact1: Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans.
Fact 2: To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts
Conclusion: Because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.
Weakness: Do the people actually put money in their retirement accounts? This is not the right weakness as it's mentioned in the fact section and not the conclusion section.(hence C is incorrect).

Right Weakness: Money deposited into retirements accounts might not result is more money available to borrowers (Mentioned in the conclusion).
Scan through the choices which states this -
A looks like the closest match.
_________________

Rock On

Kudos [?]: 201 [19], given: 3

Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 279 [12], given: 51

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2011, 04:09
12
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
C states 'Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.'

but that also means some people will choose to increase their levels of retirement savings, hence funds available for borrowing will still increase. and that increase amount will be available for businesses to borrow.

so C doesn't weaken the conclusion .

A states that number of borrowers will increase , this may result in even lesser funds for businesses to borrow than were previously available.

hence A seriously weakens the conclusion
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Kudos [?]: 279 [12], given: 51

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 195

Kudos [?]: 540 [7], given: 6

Location: Manchester UK
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2009, 13:00
7
KUDOS
81
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.

(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.

(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.

(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.

(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

Please some one explain this...as i am not convinced with the explanation from OG

Last edited by carcass on 07 Jan 2016, 04:25, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the post

Kudos [?]: 540 [7], given: 6

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4424

Kudos [?]: 8444 [6], given: 102

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2012, 17:45
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this.

The argument:
Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

In a nutshell --- if we tweak the tax system to encourage folks to put more into their retirement accounts, then presto, more money for loans will be available to business.

Prompt:
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

So, which answer effectively says -- make those changes to the tax code, and there won't be as much money for loans available to business?

(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
OK, so when people put more into their retirement, they wind up borrowing more. That would mean, private citizens en masse would be competing with business for that loan money --- that would mean less money for loans available to business. A possible right answer.

(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.
Making this change to the tax code could wind up hurting the government --- interesting, but not relevant to the argument. The argument is strictly about: will business have more money available for loans? What happens to the government is irrelevant to this argument. (B) is out.

(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
This argument above is a macroeconomics argument. It's about changes in the entire tax-system, the entire banking system, etc. Of course, not every private citizen will follow the tax incentive. Tax incentives are given with the idea that only a certain percentage of the population will respond to them. So, some private citizens won't respond to the tax incentive. So what? That's 100% predictable, and not relevant to the big macroeconomic argument at hand. (C) is out.

(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
Well, anyone -- a household or a business --- that fails to meet loan payments is not going to be wildly successful getting more loans. That's pretty obvious. There's absolutely nothing in the original argument suggesting that the businesses discussed are so strapped for money that they all are defaulting on their loans. The business are "struggling" insofar as they can't take out loans to fund R&D, which would grow already thriving businesses. My business is making money already, and I want to to R&D to grow it, but there's no money for loans so I can pursue that R&D --- that's the problem we are addressing, according to the original argument. The problem of some business defaulting on their loans --- that's something separate, not relevant to this argument. (D) is out.

(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.
Again, this is a macroeconomic argument. What matters it the total revenue taken in by the government. Let's say, because of this tax code change, retirement accounts get an additional \$1 billion, and that new money is available for loans to business. That \$1 billion could have come from everybody in the whole socioeconomic spectrum making an equal contribution, or it could have come from rich people putting in much much more than middle class people. From the business standpoint, once they have that \$1 billion available for loans, they don't give a flying figtree where it came from. From the business point of view, it's completely irrelevant how the government goes about raising that money; the specifics of allocation by various socioeconomic classes doesn't matter at all. (E) is out.

Thus, answer (A) is the only one that poses a direct attack on the argument, so that's the answer.

Does that make sense?

Here's another free CR practice question of a similar type.

http://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/1257

The question at that link should be followed by a free video with a complete explanation of the solution, once you submit you answer.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 8444 [6], given: 102

EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 578 [4], given: 51

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Dec 2015, 16:03
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.
(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

Type: Weaken
Boil It Down: Tax change -> More deposits -> More \$ for DEVELOPMENT loans
Missing Information: The plan will work.
Goal: Our goal is to “raise the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan”. That means we need to select an option that points to a reality in which the government’s goal of facilitating greater capital available for business development loans won’t be achieved. We need to find an option that shows that despite the government's plan, there wouldn’t be an increase in funds available for business development loans specifically.

Yes. This option exposes the truth that when retirement savings increase, CONSUMER borrowing always increases correspondingly. In other words, this option would radically wipe out the hope that increased retirement deposits will boost funds available for DEVELOPMENT borrowing. The capital is likely to get absorbed by consumers instead. Notice that this argument doesn’t entirely destroy the plan, but it absolutely raises a serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government’s plan to boost funds available for DEVELOPMENT loans.

Also notice the nasty shift from CONSUMER borrowing to BUSINESS borrowing. The prompt says: "Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans." This argument is bluntly stating that the objective is to promote the lending capacity for businesses. So now, according to A, if that new lending capacity spurred on by a boost in savings among individual taxpayers is getting scooped up by consumers (individuals) instead, is this new lending capacity as likely to make it to businesses? No. That's why A weakens the likelihood that the plan will work. This option turns out to be a stunningly awesome demonstration of the degree of precision and engagement we need when we read.

The health of the federal budget is violently Out of Focus to what this question asks us to do. This plan could result in a dramatic cut in revenue for the government, but the government's goal of boosting loans available for business development could still work.

No impact. Nobody is making the claim that EVERYONE will boost retirement savings as a result of the government’s plan, so whether SOME people don’t increase retirement savings is of no consequence to an evaluation of the government’s plan. This option provides no significant information to show that the government’s plan is not likely to succeed.

Trash this option. We have no way to tell how relevant this option is to the government’s plan. If banks won’t lend to businesses that are unlikely to pay the loans on time, the government’s plan to boost lending to businesses in general could still succeed because, for all we know, a substantial share of businesses could still qualify. We just don’t know to what extent this loan condition impacts the lending environment. For this option to be even remotely in play, the test-taker would have to make the unwarranted leap that a substantial volume of businesses can’t meet the loan payment schedules. We can’t make any such leap.

This option introduces a factor that has no clear impact on the likelihood that the government’s plan will work. This option could just as easily help reaffirm the likelihood that the government’s plan would work if it appears a general increase in retirement funds were available. In that interpretation of E, it actually becomes a 180 option.

Bigger GMAT Perspective:
Why is this question statistically so hard? A brutally sneaky shift in focus from CONSUMER lending to BUSINESS lending. What can be done to be able see the magnitude of option A? The most basic GMAT Verbal tenet of all: extremely engaged and careful reading. That's something that takes more discipline (especially when a timer is running, and the adrenaline is flowing) than most people realize. GMAT assassins train to be able to read at optimal 200 WPM pace. It's staggering how much easier the GMAT feels when it's read at optimal speed, and with the right set of engaged reading actions. Test-takers are able to reduce time wasted re-reading, and trim time evaluating the options.
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Last edited by EMPOWERgmatMax on 11 Jan 2016, 15:12, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 578 [4], given: 51

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4424

Kudos [?]: 8444 [3], given: 102

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2012, 10:42
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
Dear devinawilliam83

That's a good point you make. It's absolutely true that they could do a good job or a not-so-good of designing the tax incentive. It's absolutely true that some not-so-good tax incentive schemes "would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings." But consider this.

First of all, that information is given in the form of a slope or a function. It's not that everyone, regardless of increase in retirement savings, gets a single flat deduction on their taxes. That's not what it's saying. No, rather, everyone gets the same tax savings for each particular given increase in retirement savings. If two people, at different income levels, increase their retirements the same amount, their taxes are decreased the same amount. That doesn't mean that you can't reduce your taxes more by putting more in retirement. This restraint completely leaves open the possibility of: if you save more, you pay less in taxes. For extreme simplicity, let's say that the function is just a 1-to-1 ratio --- that it, for every dollar I increase my retirement savings, I can deduct that dollar from my taxes. Middle income John Q Public puts an extra \$600 in retirement, and therefore saves \$600 in taxes. If Chester Moneybags also puts an extra \$600 in retirement, he also saves \$600 in taxes, but if he puts an extra \$750,000 in retirement, he saves \$750,000 in taxes. Of course, he would be a fool not to do the latter if he could. Sizable deductions (percentage-wise) are relatively plentiful for folks with low or middle income, but when you get into upper echelons of the tax brackets, getting huge percentage deductions is much trickier. If anything, this scheme could wildly motivate the very rich to shovel money into retirement funds.

It's also true that, designing the tax incentive one way, a lot of the increase in retirement funds would come from the middle class (that could actually be a ton of money, if every single middle income household kicks in). Designing the tax incentive another way, a lot of the increase in retirement funds would come from the super-rich. I'm no expert on tax law, but it seems to me that you have the equal tax break for equal increase in retirement funds thing and still have the incentive slant either way. The point it: as long as they get the money they need, it doesn't matter one whit to the businesses how they do it.

It's 100% true that the tax-incentive plan could be incredibly poorly designed and not accomplish its goal. It's also quite true that it could be a work of sheer genius that works flawlessly, raises even more revenue than expected, and makes everyone happy. Either of those could be the case, and we don't know. Simply from knowing "The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings", we have no idea whether it will be a very well designed or very poorly designed tax package.

IN GMAT CR, when you are asked one of these "which most weakens the argument" questions, you can't afford to get into a sea of hypotheticals. "If (E) is true, and then this, and then also that -- then all of that together would hurt the argument" ---- that's not a recipe for success on these question. When you are asked "which most weakens the argument", one of the five really throws a brick through the argument. Here, that's (A): when middle class folks put more in retirement, they borrow more. BAM. Right there, less money for the businesses. No ambiguity, no hypotheticals. If you find an answer choice in which one possible way to interpret it or one possible way to imagine it playing out hurts the argument, that's not it. You want something that needs as little interpretation as possible: just what it says directly hurts the argument.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 8444 [3], given: 102

Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 672

Kudos [?]: 196 [2], given: 37

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2011, 22:46
2
KUDOS
+1 for A.

A very good practice question.

Premise 1 : Less money for business loans
Premise 2 : If more money is deposited in retirement account, more money is available to borrowers.

Conclusion: Govt plans to modify tax structure to induce more money in retirement accounts so that more money is avaialable for dev loans for businesses.

Choice A weakens the argument by saying that if more money is deposited in retirement accounts, consumer borrowing increases correspondingly. This means that more money would still not be available for dev loans to businesses.

Crick

Kudos [?]: 196 [2], given: 37

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4484

Kudos [?]: 17015 [2], given: 1963

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2015, 10:26
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Quote:
Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this.

The argument:
Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

In a nutshell --- if we tweak the tax system to encourage folks to put more into their retirement accounts, then presto, more money for loans will be available to business.

Prompt:
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

So, which answer effectively says -- make those changes to the tax code, and there won't be as much money for loans available to business?

(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
OK, so when people put more into their retirement, they wind up borrowing more. That would mean, private citizens en masse would be competing with business for that loan money --- that would mean less money for loans available to business. A possible right answer.

(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.
Making this change to the tax code could wind up hurting the government --- interesting, but not relevant to the argument. The argument is strictly about: will business have more money available for loans? What happens to the government is irrelevant to this argument. (B) is out.

(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
This argument above is a macroeconomics argument. It's about changes in the entire tax-system, the entire banking system, etc. Of course, not every private citizen will follow the tax incentive. Tax incentives are given with the idea that only a certain percentage of the population will respond to them. So, some private citizens won't respond to the tax incentive. So what? That's 100% predictable, and not relevant to the big macroeconomic argument at hand. (C) is out.

(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
Well, anyone -- a household or a business --- that fails to meet loan payments is not going to be wildly successful getting more loans. That's pretty obvious. There's absolutely nothing in the original argument suggesting that the businesses discussed are so strapped for money that they all are defaulting on their loans. The business are "struggling" insofar as they can't take out loans to fund R&D, which would grow already thriving businesses. My business is making money already, and I want to to R&D to grow it, but there's no money for loans so I can pursue that R&D --- that's the problem we are addressing, according to the original argument. The problem of some business defaulting on their loans --- that's something separate, not relevant to this argument. (D) is out.

(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.
Again, this is a macroeconomic argument. What matters it the total revenue taken in by the government. Let's say, because of this tax code change, retirement accounts get an additional \$1 billion, and that new money is available for loans to business. That \$1 billion could have come from everybody in the whole socioeconomic spectrum making an equal contribution, or it could have come from rich people putting in much much more than middle class people. From the business standpoint, once they have that \$1 billion available for loans, they don't give a flying figtree where it came from. From the business point of view, it's completely irrelevant how the government goes about raising that money; the specifics of allocation by various socioeconomic classes doesn't matter at all. (E) is out.

Thus, answer (A) is the only one that poses a direct attack on the argument, so that's the answer.

Does that make sense?

Here's another free CR practice question of a similar type.

http://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/1257

The question at that link should be followed by a free video with a complete explanation of the solution, once you submit you answer.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

@mikemcgarry

_________________

Kudos [?]: 17015 [2], given: 1963

Intern
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 0

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2008, 17:00
1
KUDOS
I think its C.
the governments assumption is that the individual taxpayers are going to put more money into retirement savings. C weakens that assumption

Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpapyers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

A. When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increase correspondingly -- consumer can be both individual and businesses
B. The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansino would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan. -- It can be after one year....there is no mention of time constarint anywhere
C. Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savingsIf people dont put any more money then the Govt.'s plan failsD. Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.Nothing related to the Govt.'s plans
E. The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings. Strengthens

What do you think?

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 0

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2008, 06:35
1
KUDOS
The answer is A according to me. We need to find something that would suggest that more money might not be available for business to borrow. Answer A explains the reason, if people borrow more than money may not be available for businesses to borrow.

C states that some might not take advantage of tax incentives but that does not mean all the people will choose to do so. More people might still take advantage of tax incentives and hence it leaves open a possibility that more money might be available for businesses to borrow.

Can you please tell us the OA.

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 0

Manager
Status: Dream big, work hard, and drink gallons of beer!
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 204

Kudos [?]: 59 [1], given: 33

Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT Date: 10-01-2011
WE: Web Development (Consulting)
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2011, 21:33
1
KUDOS
I was contemplating between C and D. Never thought the answer will be A. Any perspectives about D will be highly appreciated.
_________________

If I look absent-minded or insane, I am just living a dream of being successful. If you still wonder why I am like this, you have no idea how success tastes like!

Kudos [?]: 59 [1], given: 33

Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Posts: 240

Kudos [?]: 101 [1], given: 36

Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 00:38
1
KUDOS
zhenmaster wrote:
Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpapyers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

A. When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increase correspondingly
B. The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansino would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.
C. Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
D. Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
E. The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

Businesses can't borrow because no money available.
Policy to encourage savings
Businesses will have more money available to borrow.

B - This could be true, but this has no bearing on the conclusion of this argument.
C- This can be an answer. But, the question explicitly states that people will save more because of the govt policy. No need to assume otherwise.
D-Bankers will not lend money. This again is very attractive to be an answer. The only reason, I would discard this because it talks about a specific subset of businesses that need to borrow money. The argument talks about businesses in general.
E-This clearly is not the answer as it would help the govt policy rather than hurting it.

A - The conclusion is based upon availability of funds with banks that businesses can borrow. In this case, people saving more will borrow more, leaving the net close to where it was before the implementation of the govt policy. This is the best answer in my opinion.

Thnanks

Kudos [?]: 101 [1], given: 36

Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 375 [1], given: 11

Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
WE: Operations (Insurance)
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2012, 12:29
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the
government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger
portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such
accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's
plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases
correspondingly.
(8) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not
offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.
(e) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are
insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for
a given increase in their retirement savings.

Why is E wrong?

Kudos [?]: 375 [1], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 17

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2012, 07:50
1
KUDOS
salil wrote:

I'm not saying that A is wrong. But the explanation still doesn't rule C out.

As per my response above, The plan would fail because people won't put more money than is currently in a retirement savings account in spite of changes to the tax structure.

I think the reason that OG quotes is not good enough to rule out option C.

As my undertanding. "Some" is pretty close to the "few", perhaps 30%. Clearly, "some" doesn't represnting "most". Furthermore, (C) gives us some weaken but not strong enough compare with (A). Remeber, we have to determine which one is "most weaken" the argument. In other words, partially weaken is not a correct answer(same to the strengthen question). Thus, C out and A is the best!

I got better explaination from another site, but not sure if I can post link here.

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 17

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 162

Kudos [?]: 87 [1], given: 38

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2017, 20:13
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Quote:
please explain option E i got stuck in option A & E please, what i have understood about option E that if all taxpayer get the same flat saving incentive then it is most likely that most taxpayer don't deposit money in retirement savings ac as whether they deposit more or less they would get same tax savings, is not it ? please clarify

Hi nks2611, good question! You stated, "whether they deposit more or less they would get same tax savings"; however, notice the wording in choice E...

Quote:
(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

This does not say that taxpayers will get the same tax savings regardless of how much they deposit in retirement savings accounts; rather, it says that taxpayers will, regardless of their incomes, get "the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings." Therefore, according to choice E, if two taxpayers have different incomes but make identical increases in their retirement savings, then both would get the same tax savings. This does not mean, as I believe you understood, that two taxpayers will get the same tax savings even if the amount by which one increases his/her retirement savings is much greater than that of the other taxpayer. Thus, even if choice E is true, a taxpayer could save more by putting more money into retirement savings accounts.
_________________
Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

Kudos [?]: 87 [1], given: 38

SVP
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 2463 [1], given: 357

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2017, 08:37
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Top Contributor
zhenmaster wrote:
Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly

(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.

(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.

(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.

(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

PREMISE: Businesses suffering due to lack development loans
PREMISE: Government's proposed changes will induce taxpayers to put more money into savings accounts
UNWRITTEN CONCLUSION: There will be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow

As we examine each answer choice, we should ask "Does this weaken the conclusion that there were be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow?"

(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increase correspondingly
Does this weaken the conclusion that there were be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow?
YES! It says that consumer borrowing will DEFINITELY increase. So, there may NOT be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow

(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.
Does this weaken the conclusion that there were be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow?
NO. ELIMINATE

(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
Does this weaken the conclusion that there were be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow?
MAYBE
The key word here is SOME. On the GMAT, "some" means 1 or more.
So, if "some" means one, then we're basically saying that everyone (except for one person) will put more money into retirement savings accounts. Does this weaken the conclusion? No.
Alternatively, if "some" means 99% of the population, then we're saying that almost no one will put more money into retirement savings accounts. Does this weaken the conclusion? Yes.

(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
Does this weaken the conclusion that there were be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow?
NO. ELIMINATE

(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.
Does this weaken the conclusion that there were be more money available for BUSINESSES to borrow?
NO. ELIMINATE

So, we're down to A or C. They're both decent answers.
I'd go with A, because it uses stronger language (consumer borrowing always increases).

Cheers,
Brent
_________________

Brent Hanneson – Founder of gmatprepnow.com

Kudos [?]: 2463 [1], given: 357

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2947

Kudos [?]: 667 [0], given: 210

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2008, 06:24
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I feel its A.

If consumers borrow more, then the money left for development loans remains the same or reduces.

C is not correct, because "some" people may choose not to increase retirements, but some will, hence there will be at least some more money going to the bank to be available for loans.

zhenmaster wrote:
Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpapyers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?

A. When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increase correspondingly
B. The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansino would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.
C. Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.
D. Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.
E. The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

Kudos [?]: 667 [0], given: 210

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 311

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 1

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2008, 09:31
I'll go for C

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 1

Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo   [#permalink] 30 Mar 2008, 09:31

Go to page    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 89 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by