The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government

" it says more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones
"

C safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company

does not do anything to weaken the conclusion

A provides the option that small businesses will go through pain as well since they dont have money

Choice C actually strengthen the argument because the effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size. This choice is the same kind with choice B

Choice D the larger size of companies, the more profits those companies get. => not really relate to the complex operation and money for requirement in term of positive effects to the large companies

Choice E is the same with D

Choice A states that, the ability of small companies to reverse capital If the policy changes happen is worse than that of big ones. So, small companies will get more hurts.

The problem with C is it neither supports small companies nor the large companies. It seems to have a neutral stand with respect to the argument. So, it cannot weaken the argument. Per LR Bible, the weaken statements must destroy the argument.

The conclusion of the argument is given in the first sentence. "The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones."
The argument would be weakened if the options would negate the conclusion i.e. the regulations must prove more harmful to the smaller businesses than the bigger ones.
A gives a perfect reason for negation. Rest all do not influence the argument in that way.
C is out of scope as there is no mention of safety codes in the argument.

I still don't understand.
"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " Well if they have more money reserved for this (option A) that wont change the money the large companies will spend and the complexity operations they will have to alter. Having money reserved simply will not have the same impact for them than for the small companies.
Why you guys are only talking about "serious hardships" as they are related with the difficulty that the companies have to pay in contrast with the amount of money they have to pay and the complexity of the operations they have to change? That's what is this about, its explained in the last sentence.
Option A doens't weaken the last sentence. Why am I wrong?

Hello,

Please help to clear my confusion!!!!

Conclusion - The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.

We should look for answer choice that do not imply MORE serious hardships for big businesses. It includes either same hardship or less hardship.

Choice A: It implies More hardship on small business than on large business. Agree (Weaken the argument)

Choice B: It implies equal hardship on both the business. Then, why it is not the correct Ans ???

Thanks

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products


Premise- large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements[/color]

Conclusion- The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.

complex operations + more money spend ---> hardship

but , if you dont have reserves for improvement as in case of small companies-----> hardship increased

Hence 'A'.

c) safety regulation codes are uniformly established ------> proportionally same effort on behalf of both... large/ small companies. hence wrong.

New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.



Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.

Isn't that a weakener what you just said 'if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.-- this would mean that won't have to shed so much for the change. WEAKENS.

D strengthens the argument that these regulation changes pose more hardships for larger businesses because less of their profits can be dedicated to comply with new regulations. Whereas small companies could devote 100% of profits to change, larger companies would have a smaller percentage available to spend because the funds are already dedicated to other businesses.

KW

D strengthens the argument that these regulation changes pose more hardships for larger businesses because less of their profits can be dedicated to comply with new regulations. Whereas small companies could devote 100% of profits to change, larger companies would have a smaller percentage available to spend because the funds are already dedicated to other businesses.

KW[/quote]
Hi Kyle,

Can you explain what's wrong with B?

The conclusion say that there is no matter where you get money (in reserves as A says or your uncle gives you) the larger companies spend money more than small companies because more operations. Answer B says that the operations the same that means that the same money.

for me B

I am still not able to rule out C.If effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size,then why big companies will face hardship?
However,I understood that A is also contender.

Let me see if I can clarify C a bit. C states that the regulations "codes" are uniform without regard to company size. It doesn't say the effect of the changes is the same. Let's say there is a code that requires all vehicles to accelerate to 60 miles per hour and then come to a stop in less than 300 feet. That would be a reasonable task for a small, two-door car. For a large, fully-loaded tanker truck, however, this would be a much harder task. Back to our question - if the code is the same and doesn't have any adjustments for size the changes could easily create larger hardships for larger organizations. This would strengthen the argument.

KW

Conclusion: Regulations imposed by government impact big businesses than small businesses.
Premise:Large businesses do everything on large scale;Thus have to alter complex operations and spend large amount of money to bring the changes.

Came across A with POE
D-does not weaken
E-same as D does not weaken
c-I think it is reverse answer.It strengthen the argument little bit,but does not weaken for sure.
If regulations are uniform,then government did not consider that regulations may affect bigger businesses more than it affect small businesses.
b-no doubt technology is same but this does not weaken the argument.Because argument's reasoning is that regulations impact large business,as large businesses do everything on large scale.Small businesses can have same technology as large businesses have ,but small businesses do not operate on large scale.
A-best answer.If small businesses have no capital for regulations,they may get out of business.Whereas large businesses may face difficulty to bring regulations but will be able to attain so.

you, mother ducker..do not write your thoughts in the question stem..it makes harder for everyone to objectively analyse the question...
I went with A.
Argument says -> more pressure is on big companies than on small ones.
A says that while big companies have $ to adapt, small ones have to go out of business. directly weakens the argument.

even though bicycle and BMW run on same technology it does not say that it is difficult for the companies manufacturing BMW than that of bicycle because the machines that are being used or technology or spare parts are similar. May be the sizes vary making us to think it is difficult in BMW companies but it does not. Some times it is difficult for companies which manufactures small size products like screws or nails to change their technology due to precision. So such conclusion cannot be built based on sizes or parts or end products.