It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 10:54

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1191

Kudos [?]: 912 [0], given: 54

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2017, 07:44
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (01:25) correct 58% (01:35) wrong based on 154 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine that it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.
(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.
(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense.
(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.
(E) Businesses are leaning to exploit the public's environmental awareness in promoting themselves.

Source: LSAT
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Kudos [?]: 912 [0], given: 54

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Aug 2016
Posts: 54

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

Re: Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2017, 03:26
broall wrote:
Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine that it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.
(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.
(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense.
(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.
(E) Businesses are leaning to exploit the public's environmental awareness in promoting themselves.

Source: LSAT


The answer is D

Acc to my reasoning, if "Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense." then they may not care about such accidents and install adequate environmental safeguards.

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

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 65

Kudos [?]: 34 [1], given: 162

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2017, 03:50
1
This post received
KUDOS
broall wrote:
Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine that it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.
(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.
(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense.
(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.
(E) Businesses are leaning to exploit the public's environmental awareness in promoting themselves.

Source: LSAT

IMO A
If Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents, those that might have such accidents will be reluctant to spend on safe guarding measures apart from paying fines, as they have already believed that such an accident won't occur in future and installing adequate environmental safeguards will only be an additional unnecessary expense.

'D' was a contender till I realised that this option would actually contradict the premise which says "since businesses value their profits". This implies that if businesses can eliminate one expense, though ordinary, the saving of money would be a profit to them. So the motto would be to minimize the expense regardless of its type - ordinary or additional.
_________________

------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"

Kudos [?]: 34 [1], given: 162

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2017, 02:41
This definitely a great question!

I had marked option D, which is incorrect! :( .

Went through a number of online explanations to understand where I faltered!

Premise: Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine that it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident.

Conclusion: Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.
[This is the correct answer! Focus on the underlined sentence - " that might have such accidents will now install". Here the author assumes that such accidents in present would motivate the company to install safeguards. But if a company say underestimates such future accidents?? If it assumes that such accidents happen once in say 10 years, then it might consider not installing the safeguards. Thus, this option definitely weakens the argument!]

(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.
[This is irrelevant, we are not bothered with long-term and short-term strategies, we just need to prove that the company won't install the safeguards, as its profit might not be affected]

(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense.
[This option kind of strengthens it and makes us believe that the company might install the safeguards - eliminated]

(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.
[Now this is what I had marked! This is incorrect. The company cares for its profit. Now if it considers it as an ordinary business expense, then that means, it would have to reduce this amount from the revenue that it is generating and that might lead to the decrease in its overall profit! If it reduces the profit, which the company cares so much about, then it would definitely install the safeguards to reduce such reductions in profit. So this option kind of strengthens the argument.]

(E) Businesses are leaning to exploit the public's environmental awareness in promoting themselves.
[this is irrelevant and doesn't help us weakening the argument.]
_________________

Work Hard! Have Fun! Create History! :)

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 71

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 113

Location: Australia
Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Oct 2017, 19:31
I answered D
Reanalyzed in my head afterwards, realized that the answer should be A, and it is simple, really.
A company can [and may be will] "install adequate environmental safeguards" only if it can estimate correctly.
If it underestimates [in other words estimates wrong, either willfully or unwillingly] it simply cannot install adequate environmentall safeguards.

I channelled my thought with the notion that the company refuses to install adequate environmental safeguards, what if it cannot, because it estimates wrong[?

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 113

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2017, 02:03
Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine that it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents. -Correct. If the business underestimate the future accidents, then they will not take any measures to install adequate environmental safeguards.
(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits. -This is a factual statement. We are just worried about the businesses that take into account future accidents.
(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense. -This will strengthen the argument. The business will try to avoid any unnecessary accident that might cost them their fortune.
(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense. -This is just a factual statement. This tells us that how the businesses maintain their books of account post the fine is levied against them. This doesn't tell us as to why the businesses will not install adequate environmental safeguards.
(E) Businesses are leaning to exploit the public's environmental awareness in promoting themselves. -This is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally   [#permalink] 03 Oct 2017, 02:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.