Even though offering payday loans through public sector banks could be

Question

Even though offering payday loans through public sector banks could be a strong source of revenue for the government, doing so should not be allowed. Offering such loans in public sector banks would not serve the best interests of the public. When the public starts taking on more payday loans, its overall financial health suffers.

The argument depends on which of the following?

A) The public will be financially healthier if it avoids payday loans entirely than if it only takes out such loans infrequently.
B) The public does not currently take on an amount of payday loans that is detrimental to its overall financial health.
C) If payday loans were offered by public sector banks, the public would take on more such loans.
D) The public generally prefers loan services from public sector banks to those from private sector banks. 
E) The government should primarily be concerned with safeguarding the financial health of the public.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Conclusion Public sector banks should not be allowed to offer payday loans

Reason When the public starts taking on more payday loans, its overall financial health suffers.

Missing link overall financial health of public and action of public sector banks. Author assumes people will start taking the loans offered by PSB and this practice is going to send them in debt(bad financial condition) thats why Author is recommending not to allow PSB to offer payday loans. Any option that showcase this understanding is our assumption.

A. Incorrect comparison
B. Current state doesn't matter
C. Keep perfectly catches
D. Preference of public is not relevant we are concerned about action
E. Priority how is that helpful irrelevant

So C imo

vasu1104 · Answer

offering payday loans through the public sector banks could be strong revenue source of government. 
 offering such loans in public sector banks would not serve the best interest of public. 
 when public starts taking on more payday loans, its overall financial health suffers.

Conclusion- offering payday loans should not be allowed.

to arrive conclusion it considered 2 main problem, firstly, loans would not serve the best interest of public. second, due to more loans being offered, its overall financial health suffers.

A) The public will be financially healthier if it avoids payday loans entirely than if it only takes out such loans infrequently. 
 this is wrong comparison here. reject. not concerned about how can public can be financially healthier.

B) The public does not currently take on an amount of payday loans that is detrimental to its overall financial health. 
 not concerned about current scenario. reject.

C) If payday loans were offered by public sector banks, the public would take on more such loans 
 so if they start giving more loans then they are assuming that people will take it and the more it take, the financial health will suffer and would not serve the best interest. but we people are nor taking it then the entire chain breaks down. keep.

D) The public generally prefers loan services from public sector banks to those from private sector banks. 
 this is also wrong comparison here. not concerned with what is audiences preference. reject.

E) The government should primarily be concerned with safeguarding the financial health of the public. 
 not relevant here.

Ishaan30 · Answer

While solving an inference or assumption or conclusion question, I always remind myself of the definition of each of these terms because it is easy to get confused when their meanings are so close to each other.
Inference - Logical conclusion based on the given information. All information is not provided when we make an inference. Inference bridges the gap between some information.
Conclusion -  Final logical judgement.  All information is provided and it summarizes the text or  the final outcome . 
Assumption - An  unstated piece of belief  that is required for the conclusion to work.

Govt offering loans through public sector banks -> High revenue. But if people take more such loans -> Bad for financial health.
Facts derived from text -
 
 Loans through public sector banks -> more revenue for govt  
 
 Offering loans through public -> bad financial health

Assumption - Offering payday loans through public sector banks is a strategy that the government considers.
Conclusion - Offering payday loans through public sector banks should not be allowed.
Support -

Nope. Public taking loans infrequently hasn't been mentioned. It may or may not affect the financial health.  
 
  Nope. What the public is doing currently is not the concern of the argument.  
 
  Keep. This choice seems reliable because the inference that can be drawn from the facts leads us to believe that the public may take more loans if offered.  
 
  Nope. The argument does not state the preference between public and private banks.  
 
  Interesting. Yes, the govt should be concerned with the financial health but that is too general. It can't be the inference drawn from the facts. Remember that inference is always drawn from the facts and facts only. Also this option sounds like a suggestion. So nope.

Correct answer - C

BongBideshini · Answer

The argument moves from   "more payday loans hurt financial health"    to    "therefore, public sector banks shouldn't offer them." "   But this leap only works if offering payday loans through public sector banks would actually cause people to take out more of them.

A) The public will be financially healthier if it avoids payday loans entirely than if it only takes out such loans infrequently. 
>The argument doesn't compare "zero loans" vs. "infrequent loans." It only uses the word  more , making this irrelevant.

B) The public does not currently take on an amount of payday loans that is detrimental to its overall financial health. 
>The argument doesn't depend on the  current  level of payday loan usage; it's about what would happen if banks offered them.

C) If payday loans were offered by public sector banks, the public would take on more such loans. 
 >   Correct,

D) The public generally prefers loan services from public sector banks to those from private sector banks. 
>Preference does not necessarily mean people would take more payday loans overall.

E) The government should primarily be concerned with safeguarding the financial health of the public. 
>While this explains the government's motive, it doesn't prove that the specific action (allowing loans) will actually lead to the result (more loans/worse health).

Answer: C

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

C is the best choice.

Video explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74tgb95Q_AU

prepapr · Answer

Premise: 
 Offering payday loans through public sector banks could be a strong source of revenue for the government. However, when the public starts taking on more payday loans, its overall financial health suffers.
 Conclusion: 
 Therefore, offering payday loans through public sector banks would not serve the best interests of the public and should not be allowed.
 Logical Gap: 
 The argument assumes that if public sector banks offer payday loans, the public will actually take on more such loans. Without this assumption, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Simply offering the loans does not automatically mean that people will borrow more.
Analyzing Answer Choices
 A) The public will be financially healthier if it avoids payday loans entirely than if it only takes out such loans infrequently. 
 This is irrelevant. The argument is not comparing complete avoidance versus infrequent borrowing. It only states that taking on more payday loans harms financial health.
 B) The public does not currently take on an amount of payday loans that is detrimental to its overall financial health. 
 The current situation is not important to the argument. The conclusion is about what would happen if public sector banks offered payday loans.
 C) If payday loans were offered by public sector banks, the public would take on more such loans. 
 This fills the logical gap perfectly. The argument depends on the idea that offering payday loans through public sector banks would increase borrowing. If borrowing increases, then financial health suffers, supporting the conclusion.
Negation test: If the public would not take on more payday loans even after public sector banks offered them, then the conclusion weakens significantly because the public’s financial health would not necessarily suffer.
 D) The public generally prefers loan services from public sector banks to those from private sector banks. 
 This is not necessary. Even if the public prefers public sector banks, that alone does not prove that they would take on more payday loans.
 E) The government should primarily be concerned with safeguarding the financial health of the public. 
 This is not required for the argument. The conclusion focuses on whether offering payday loans serves the public’s best interests, not on the government’s primary responsibility.
 Correct Answer: C

Even though offering payday loans through public sector banks could be

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Even though offering payday loans through public sector banks could be

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards