Argument: mayor plans to create SEZ in order to attract small and medium businesses.
Such small and medium firms must not compete with large scale businesses, as states the stem.
Target: to attract more investors who set up businesses under financially viable conditions.
The overall aim is TO ATTRACT INVESTORS.
We need a choice that supports the idea of the mayor.
That choice should demonstrate that the plan indeed ATTRACTED investors and their investments.
With this in mind let’s analyze the choices:
A. Tax benefits, special rates of interest and other financial subsidies have in the past helped many economies similar to Hortwitz grow.
A common trap answer: the logic behind is that A succeeded, so B also should succeed. The fact that other similar economies were helped by a akin plan doesn’t necessarily mean that this plan will work for other economies too. It sounds as if someone claims: high gmat score helped X, Y, Z to get admitted to a business school, so N with high score will get admitted too.
Moreover, “helped” is broad term and it doesn’t necessarily mean “to attract investors, investments”.
B. In Greenwitz, Hortwitz’s twin city, post the creation of SEZs, the economy grew by an unprecedented 6% when measures were taken to encourage investments in businesses.
The very same logic that uses A. even though twin cities, they may have different policy, legal basis, and terms for businesses. Without the additional information we cannot say that the plan will succeed. “the economy grew” and “encourage investments” don’t necessarily mean that the economy grew because of “attracted investments”.
C. In Hortwitz, although the few existing small and medium scale industries did not register growth, the creation of SEZs led to a significant increase in the contribution made to the economy by small and medium scale businesses
Seems to be correct. “the few existing” means all of the existing small and medium businesses in the area. The choice says that such businesses made significant contribution to the economy. Most probably such contribution implies that such business made investments in setting up firms, creating jobs, binging new technology, and create work places. All of this indicates an investment made by investors.
“did not register growth” doesn’t mean that the number of businesses increased, but their scale did not increase. And that’s what we want because as mayor plans small businesses MUST NOT compete with large scale ones, by rising into a large scale.
As mayor plans small plans should remain small, must create competition, but bring investment. That’s what this choice says.
D. Most of the SEZs were planned in remote areas where the costs of transportation and labour were very high.
This choice weakens rather than supports the plan. If choice D is true, the small business holders will not be interested in investing to set up business in such SEZ. So, choice is out.
E. Many investors are reluctant to invest in small and medium scale businesses as the return on investments are often low and risks comparatively high.
Once again this choice weakens rather than supports the plan. Let it be true, small business holder do not invest in small businesses.
This choice is also too broad too tackle mayors plan, because it states an overall tendency. So, it is out.
Hence
CPosted from my mobile device