It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 22:30

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Keith: Compliance with new government regulations

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 927

Kudos [?]: 1506 [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

14 May 2010, 04:38
4
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

60% (01:04) correct 40% (01:11) wrong based on 1391 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

_________________

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 [?]: 1506 [4], given: 40

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 167 [6], given: 0

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2010, 05:38
6
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 [?]: 167 [6], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 251

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 2

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 61 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1476

Kudos [?]: 759 [0], given: 6

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 759 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 179

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

Re: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 556

Kudos [?]: 971 [3], given: 321

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

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 971 [3], given: 321

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 302

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 23

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

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 23

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 593

Kudos [?]: 461 [0], given: 200

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

### Show Tags

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.

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

Kudos [?]: 461 [0], given: 200

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 832 [1], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 19:54
1
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.

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 [?]: 832 [1], given: 5

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 832 [1], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 21:10
1
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 [?]: 832 [1], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 25 Apr 2013
Posts: 66

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 20 Nov 2014
Posts: 6

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 188

Kudos [?]: 54 [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

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 [?]: 54 [0], given: 349

Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2016
Posts: 203

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 38

Location: United States
GPA: 3.4
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 37 [0], given: 38

VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1070

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 533

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

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 [?]: 69 [0], given: 533

Director
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 820

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

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

### Show Tags

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

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

Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 47

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

Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V31
GPA: 4
Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

Re: Keith: Compliance with new government regulations   [#permalink] 08 Oct 2017, 20:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by