Last visit was: 26 May 2024, 23:48 It is currently 26 May 2024, 23:48
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:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 225
Own Kudos [?]: 145 [37]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 869
Own Kudos [?]: 8580 [19]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 360
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Own Kudos [?]: 287 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
One more for C. All the other choices do not seem to agree with the stimulus
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 313
Own Kudos [?]: 69 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Milwaukee
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
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)
User avatar
SVP
SVP
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 2003
Own Kudos [?]: 1906 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Singapore
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
(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.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 548
Own Kudos [?]: 4466 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Taiwan
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
vprabhala wrote:
Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and nonsmokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified. The fact that studies indicate that nonsmokers 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?
(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses
is justified only when individuals might be harmed.
(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of
businesses to be free from government intrusion.
(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right
or duty the government may have to protect the individual.
(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in
the workplace.
(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the
main issue is finding a successful compromise.


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.
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Status:Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Posts: 730
Own Kudos [?]: 1876 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
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
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
GMAT Date: 09-02-2013
GPA: 3
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
going with:-
(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses
is justified only when individuals might be harmed.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 103
Own Kudos [?]: 410 [0]
Given Kudos: 69
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
Everyone is only telling the answer. Can anyone help me to understand this argument?
VP
VP
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Status:It's near - I can see.
Posts: 1475
Own Kudos [?]: 1617 [0]
Given Kudos: 1002
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GPA: 3.01
WE:Engineering (Real Estate)
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
vprabhala wrote:
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?

(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is justified only when individuals might be harmed.
(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of businesses to be free from government intrusion.
(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual.
(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace.
(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main issue is finding a successful compromise.

Source: LSAT


+1 : C

E is out of scope. A,B, and D favor the government. Only C is in support of the business firm.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 132
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 93
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
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??
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 May 2017
Posts: 179
Own Kudos [?]: 305 [0]
Given Kudos: 779
Location: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
GMAT 1: 430 Q39 V12
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
pqhai wrote:
umeshpatil wrote:
Everyone is only telling the answer. Can anyone help me to understand this argument?


Deaer umeshpatil. I'm more than happy to help. :)

This is assumption question. First and most important is to determine the conclusion correctly. If you cannot find the conclusion, you couldn't solve the question. Next, you must find an assumption that makes the conclusion hold. Because the wording in this question is very convoluted, to understand what the question says, you should paraphrase the stimulus.

Premise: The right of an individual be protected from inhaling the smoke from others' cigarettes is not the most important. (original phrase: not the main issue). ask your self what is the most important?

Conclusion: Private business sector concludes that government's violation to the right of private business sector cannot be accepted (original phrase: cannot be justified). let ask yourself why private businesses say that government violates their right?

Assumption: Probably private businesses maintain that their right to self-determination is more important the right of individual who need to be protected from inhaling the smoke.

Now please look at C: The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual.

I bet you understand why C is correct :)

Hope it helps you a little bit.


TAKE AWAY:
For assumption questions, determine the conclusion is the most important.

THIS IS NOT ASSUMPTION QUESTION !
this is Justify the Conclusion—PR. question
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Jun 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
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?
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1372
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
JyotiMishra567 wrote:
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:
Quote:
the government's violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rule.

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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Posts: 207
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
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.
CEO
CEO
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 2580
Own Kudos [?]: 1838 [0]
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
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.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17387
Own Kudos [?]: 852 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#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: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6946 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
827 posts