Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and

One more for C. All the other choices do not seem to agree with the stimulus

C as well

Only C provides the necessary condition to justify the authors conclusion (the main issue concerns the government's violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rule)

(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is justified only when individuals might be harmed.
- Weakens the argument

(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of
businesses to be free from government intrusion.
- Weakens the argument

(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual.
- This should be the answer. The author strongly feels that private businesses should have a right to determine their own policies and rule, rather than be regulated by the government.

(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace.
- Out

(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main issue is finding a successful compromise.
- Out

C it is.

go with C.

....the main issue concerns the government's violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rule. ....

It supports that the right of businesses to self-determination overrides health matters.

C must be the answer.. concern here is the govt's intrusion into the policy making decision of the govt.......the option describing the health concerns must be overlooked...its nt the main point of the argument.

archit

going with:-
(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses
is justified only when individuals might be harmed.

Everyone is only telling the answer. Can anyone help me to understand this argument?

+1 : C

E is out of scope. A,B, and D favor the government. Only C is in support of the business firm.

I am finding it hard to understand the argument.
"Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and non-smokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified."
what does this mean?

premise 2: nonsmokers might be harmed by inhaling the smoke is not an issue.

conclusion :govt's violation of the right of private business to determine their own rules and policies.
am i right?

And how do we get to the answer??

THIS IS NOT ASSUMPTION QUESTION !
this is Justify the Conclusion—PR. question

I am sorry but I have a doubt... I thought that the main conclusion is the 1st line of the argument rather than the last line bcz Acc to the ABC test GOVT ACTION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BCZ GOVT VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS and not vice versa. Can you please explain?

What is ABC test?

Conclusion:
means government violated their right of business and hence was not justified. It is the same means as what you have stated.
We need to find an option that completes the conclusion of government violating the rights.

OptionC: Right of business is above the government right to protect the individual. With this , conclusion is reasonable.

I am surprised that option D has got so much less voting though it too seems to be a strong contender :

(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace.

The conclusion is that it is not the point whether non-smoker will be harmed. Rather, government should not step into the territory of private business and infringe its right to create rules.

The option D supports this conclusion that it is the responsibility of the private business to protect its employees. How it will achieve the same should be left to the business itself.

Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and non-smokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified. The fact that studies indicate that non-smokers might be harmed by inhaling the smoke from others' cigarettes is not the main issue. Rather, the main issue concerns the government's violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rule.

Which one of the following is principle that, if accepted, could enable the conclusion to be properly drawn?

The highlighted text is the conclusion. Question stem is asking which one of the choices basically fills the gap/jump to reach that conclusion.
First of all, the argument is about govt legislation and eventually govt breaking that.

(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is justified only when individuals might be harmed. - WRONG. Harm aspect is not the core of the argument.

(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of businesses to be free from government intrusion. - WRONG. True may be but not impacting conclusion.

(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual. - CORRECT. Only if one's right is superior to other's than the conclusion can be reached.

(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace. - WRONG. This looks great but it is out of scope since duty is different than legislation. Finally, even if it is so then conclusion is not necessarily reached out.

(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main issue is finding a successful compromise. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Answer C.

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.