Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the instal

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.

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.

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)

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

NEW Gmatclub Project
Click here

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.

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

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

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.

nightblade354 GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma



With both consequently and therefore signaling a conclusion I chose the later as main conclusion of Keith's quote. Am I correct?



Can you please explain How Laura's quote goes against the main conclusion of Keith?


I found underlined words to be linked and hence chose (E). Is not it saying that 25 bn spent by entertainment industry will serve as revenue
for another industry, say hospitality / banking? Where did I go wrong here?

Quote:

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

Our two speakers here are mainly arguing about the effect of regulation (“installation on smoke alarms and sprinkle systems in theatres…”) on economy.

Keith argues that that $25 billion annual cost will lead to job loss and profit decline. His conclusion is that regulations will hurt the country’s economy.

Laura presents a counterpoint. She agrees that there is the same cost involved but presents the view that “jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.” It is evident that Laura believes in the rationale behind Keith’s argument but disagrees with his one-sided view & interprets the information in a different light. This anticipates our answer to be (C).

(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
Laura never expresses that Keith’s conclusion is not relevant.

(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
Like (A), Laura does not “challenge the plausibility” of Keith’s evidence. Rather, she simply interprets it in a different light.

(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating consequence
This accurately portrays Laura’s reasoning. The idea of the mitigating consequence is present by the idea that “jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.”

(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
She does not reinforce (or support) his conclusion.

(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
She does not agree with the main conclusion.

Hi AndrewN VeritasKarishma AnthonyRitz

I would like to take your opinion on option B vs C
If we see B , in one way , Laura challenges the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument. is not it?


K makes conclusion based on some evidence but that evidence is half side of story then actually can't we say that K conclusion is not based on complete ( e.g. not valid/not plausible) evidence.
For conclusion, the evidence should be complete otherwise it should not be considered as valid.

Or

I take a learning:
If half information and conclusion is driven based on that half evidence then conclusion is still considered valid.


Please suggest.


Thanks AndrewN VeritasKarishma AnthonyRitz

Laura does not "challeng[e] the plausibility of Keith's evidence." This would suggest that Laura is saying that at least one of Keith's premises is not only wrong but in fact not believable at all. But Keith's only first premise was that, "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." Does Laura ever deny that this is true? I don't see it. Even Keith's intermediate conclusion isn't something that Laura disputes. Does she ever disagree that "jobs will be lost and profits diminished"? On the contrary, she says "Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost. [emphasis added]" So no, I don't agree with B being a viable option whatsoever.

I think that there's a huge difference between saying that evidence is wrong and saying that "that evidence is half side of story," as you said. Evidence is not "invalid" because it is incomplete, even if the conclusion based on incomplete evidence may itself be invalid. So, to be clear, I disagree with the lesson you take here:



This is wrong. Keith's conclusion is not necessarily valid, since it is based on incomplete evidence. That's what C says, and C is definitely the right answer here.

Hi AndrewN

Why is D incorrect? She did agree that for some, jobs and profits would be lost.

Hello, Namangupta1997. The conclusion in question is that [new government regulations] will harm the country's economy. Laura in no way agrees that the economy (on the whole) will be harmed. Rather, she concedes that some jobs and profits may be lost, but she is quick to add that others will be gained in a sort of economic balancing act. We cannot say that she reinforces Keith's conclusion, since to reinforce means to add force to something. It should be clear that Laura disagrees with Keith. In fact, if you just follow the verb trail of wills, you can glean as much—Keith: will harm (negative); Laura: will be revenue (in this context, positive) and will be gained (another positive). I did not read beyond the first three words of answer choice (D), to be honest. I like to save my mental reserves for tougher challenges.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

AndrewN KarishmaB

What's the exact meaning of C? What is "mitigating consequence" in this case?
As per my understanding, Keith's argument didn't consider less severe consequence (job gain) of the $25 billion spent.

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

Thanks for your time.

Keith says that new regulations 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 responds by saying that you haven't considered all consequences of these regulations. If jobs will be lost in entertainment industry, they will be gained in the fire safety equipment industry (a consequence Keith did not consider). So the intensity of the consequence (jobs lost etc.) will lessen (because jobs will be gained elsewhere). This - gaining jobs and profits elsewhere - is the mitigating consequence.