It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 18:18

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

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations

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

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 926

Kudos [?]: 1543 [4], given: 40

WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2010, 04:38
4
This post received
KUDOS
20
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

59% (01:04) correct 41% (01:11) wrong based on 1530 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by

(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Want to improve your CR: http://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Kudos [?]: 1543 [4], given: 40

6 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 171 [6], given: 0

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2010, 05:38
6
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
ykaiim wrote:
Tricky!

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand >>> Laura doesn't ignore the issue.
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument >>>>>> Laura doesn't question the validity of the evidence/data.
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence >>> CORRECT
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites >>> Laura doesn't reinforce the conclusion, here the conclusion is : jobs will be lost and profits diminished..
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism >>> She doesn't agree with the main conclusion

Kudos [?]: 171 [6], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 251

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 2

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2010, 07:58
ykaiim wrote:
Tricky!

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism

It has to be C.
C & E are the two short listed choices, but E does not talk about the conclusion of Keith's argument "hese regulations will harm the country’s economy". Hence C.

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 2

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2009
Posts: 44

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

Location: New York, NY
Schools: Columbia, NYU, Wharton, UCLA, Berkeley
WE 1: 2 Yrs mgmt consulting
WE 2: 2 yrs m&a
Reviews Badge
Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2010, 11:05
Agree it's C.
E might come close but it's not even right because Laura never even agreed with Keith in what she said..she simply suggested the point that he overlooked. Which is C.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1471

Kudos [?]: 788 [0], given: 6

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2010, 12:31
it is C.

Laura suggests that Keith’s argument (jobs will be lost and profits diminished) overlooks a mitigating consequence ($25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost)

Kudos [?]: 788 [0], given: 6

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 179

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 17

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2010, 01:13
it must be C , as laura say mean to say that whatever the loss would occcur to the entertainment industry in the form of expendicture , would serve as a profit for the other industries as they would get the job for fiing sprinkelrs etc.
clearly its C

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 17

3 KUDOS received
BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 556

Kudos [?]: 987 [3], given: 321

GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Nov 2013, 06:30
3
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED

Kudos [?]: 987 [3], given: 321

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 301

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 23

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2014, 15:54
Can someone explain why it's not B? Doesn't Laura challenge his evidence by saying that Keith is not looking at the big picture?

EDIT: Maybe the definition of "mitigating" threw me off as well. I read C as - Laura is suggesting that Keith's argument is overlooking a very serious consequence? Why it's not B still baffles me.

Thanks in advance.

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 23

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 591

Kudos [?]: 476 [0], given: 200

Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2015, 10:04
Had to decide between C and E, fast got traped by the second part of (E) optimism/pessimism but noticed later that she didn't agree with the main conclusion Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Kudos [?]: 476 [0], given: 200

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 845 [1], given: 5

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2015, 19:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
russ9 wrote:
Can someone explain why it's not B? Doesn't Laura challenge his evidence by saying that Keith is not looking at the big picture?

EDIT: Maybe the definition of "mitigating" threw me off as well. I read C as - Laura is suggesting that Keith's argument is overlooking a very serious consequence? Why it's not B still baffles me.

Thanks in advance.


It's not B because she doesn't say that Keith's evidence is invalid. She accepts that jobs could be lost. She is saying that Keith's evidence is correct but incomplete because he doesn't take into account the additional jobs created.

KW
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile



Kudos [?]: 845 [1], given: 5

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 845 [1], given: 5

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2015, 21:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
I realized that I didn't respond to your comment about mitigating. Don't be afraid of words you don't fully understand in the moment. You need to eliminate the wrong answers until you get to the correct one. And be careful to not quickly eliminate on what you think it might mean.

KW
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile



Kudos [?]: 845 [1], given: 5

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2013
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 12

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2015, 06:33
To me, it was between C and E. E sounded slightly more extreme in 2 ways:

I) Agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument: There is no explicit agreement that Laura shows with Keith's argument

II) "Optimism" and "pessimism" are again slightly unsupported.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 12

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Nov 2014
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 41

Reviews Badge
Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2015, 06:16
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler
systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs
will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.
Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as
well as lost.
Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for
optimism rather than for pessimism


Could someone please tell to which category of CR questions the above one belongs to?

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 41

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 188

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 349

Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: HBS '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2015, 10:24
IMO C ... Please post the OA ... The mitigating consequence here is if jobs and profits are lost they are also gained in some other way

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 349

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 22 Nov 2016
Posts: 251

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 42

Location: United States
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 3.4
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 07:49
The first word of each answer plays a vital role in eliminating wrong answers.
Conclusion - Economy will be harmed.
A) She does not say it is irrelevant. In fact she is agreeing with Keith to some extent.However, she does not agree 100%
B) Challenging - No, she is not challenging
D) Reinforcing - Laura does not reinforce that jobs will be lost. She is neutral at best
E) Agreeing - Laura does not agree with the conclusion that the economy will be harmed.

The only choice is C - Here Laura implies that Keith did not take into account that the $25 billion expense is income for someone else. We can assume that the business will come from within the country and hence not really hurt the economy.
_________________

Kudosity killed the cat but your kudos can save it.

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 42

VP
VP
User avatar
G
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1081

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 538

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 09:53
Imo C

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by

(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand

New evidence are not given in the argument so it is out of scope.

(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument

It does not challenge the plausibility of the evidence of the keith's argument .

(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence

Correct
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites

It is not reinforcing Keith's conclusion.

(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
No Lura is does not agree with the conclusion of keith's argument .
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 538

Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 807

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Premium Member
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2017, 10:21
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 13

Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V31
GPA: 4
WE: Marketing (Advertising and PR)
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2017, 20:53
I too was stuck between C & E.
Finally selected C :-) Time taken 1:41 seconds.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 13

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 574

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 131

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2017, 08:48
Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.

Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.

Laura responds to Keith by

(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand -She is not talking about the evidences used by Keith to reach at the conclusion.
(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument -She is not challenging the evidence used by Keith to reach the the conclusion. She is just pointing out that the conclusion is too far-fetched.
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence -Correct.
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites -No. She opposes the conclusion.
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism -She opposes the conclusion
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

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

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 131

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 170

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 74

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2017, 05:52
I wanted to chime in on this question. You can get the answer by POE, as shown above, but the answer's wording isn't 100% correct. If the answer said 'mitigating factor', this would be far better.

Per Dicitionary.com, the definition of a mitigating factor is "to make less severe". This definition works for our conclusion. A mitigating consequence is an awkward phrase that I, as a native English speaker, have never heard of. Further, the internet, Dictionary.com included, CANNOT find a definition for a 'mitigating consequence'. Given this, I believe the wording should be changed.
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 74

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations   [#permalink] 26 Oct 2017, 05:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Keith: Compliance with new government regulations

  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®.