Last visit was: 31 Oct 2024, 16:24 It is currently 31 Oct 2024, 16:24
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
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 96,533
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 87,883
Products:
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 96,533
Kudos: 673,098
 [44]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
38
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
MartyMurray
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 1,206
Own Kudos:
3,026
 [13]
Given Kudos: 106
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,206
Kudos: 3,026
 [13]
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
gmatophobia
User avatar
Quant Chat Moderator
Joined: 22 Dec 2016
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 3,131
Own Kudos:
6,398
 [7]
Given Kudos: 1,860
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
Products:
Posts: 3,131
Kudos: 6,398
 [7]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
KittyDoodles
Joined: 21 Jan 2020
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 101
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 346
Posts: 101
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyMurray
The author of the argument concludes the following:

Thus, no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

In the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition. Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items.

We see that the author has reasoned that, because "an essential part of their business competition" is "needed to help the teams profit," "no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises."

The correct answer must point out a flaw in that reasoning.

A. fails to consider that government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services rather than manufactured goods

It's true that the argument does involve making the case that antitrust regulation of a type of business that does not provide manufactured goods, professional sports teams, is not needed.

However, in making the argument, the author does not do what this choice says.

Rather, the author makes a case for not regulating professional sports teams even if it is the case that "government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services."

B. concludes, only from the claim that one aspect of professional sports teams' competition requires no antitrust regulation, that no other aspect of their business does

In analyzing the argument, we see that integral to the evidence provided in support of the conclusion is the following:

In the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition.

Notice that the argument describes sports competition as the "main product" and "an essential part" of the business of professional sports teams. Thus, we see that this integral component of the evidence is about only PART of the business of professional sports teams. After all, the "main product" is not all of the products of their businesses, and "an essential part" is only part of their business.

So, we can see that the argument arrives at the conclusion that antitrust regulations aren't needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises overall on the basis of information about only part, i.e., "an aspect," of what these enterprises do.

In other words, a broad, general conclusion is supported by only narrow evidence, meaning that the conclusion goes beyond what the evidence clearly supports.

Thus, we can see that this choice points out a way in which the argument is flawed.

C. fails to consider that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers rather than in the interest of the businesses regulated

This choice is incorrect because it does not accurately describe what the argument does.

Reviewing the passage, we see that it says the following:

Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition.

So, the argument clearly DOES consider "that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers."

Since this choice conflicts with what the passage does, it's clearly incorrect.

D. presumes, without providing justification, that a professional sports team can gain a significant business advantage through consistently strong competition in sports events

Notice that the point of the argument is that, antitrust regulation of professional sports teams is not needed because professional sports teams will NOT gain excessive business advantages.

Thus, in saying that the argument presumes that "a professional sports team CAN gain a significant business advantage," this choice basically goes against the point of the argument.

So, this choice doesn't accurately describe what the argument does and thus cannot describe a flaw in the argument.

E. makes no distinction, explicit or implicit, between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition

It's true that the argument makes no distinction between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition. However, making such a distinction is not necessary for the argument to work. After all, the argument is about the business dynamics among professional sports teams only, and the information provided about those types of businesses is sufficient for the argument to work.

So, the fact that the argument makes no distinction between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition is not a flaw in the argument.

The correct answer is

Hi MartyMurray,

I'm still not able to understand how Option C is incorrect.

As per the passage we see "Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition, which ultimately affects consumer prices". However when arriving at the conclusion we see the author has used the reasoning that "But in the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition. Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items". Thus to arrive at the conclusion the author hasn't stated how consumers will be affected by no anti-trust regulations.

Thanks
Kitty
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 761
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 29
Products:
Posts: 761
Kudos: 95
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understanding the argumnent - ­
Sports team owner: Government antitrust regulations are designed to prevent one business from gaining an excessive advantage over others. - Fact
Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition, which ultimately affects consumer prices. - Fact
But in the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition. - Contrast and highlight one aspect of professional sports teams (PST). 
Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items. - opinion. 
Thus, no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises. - Conclusion. 

The sports team owner's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Option Elimination - 

A. fails to consider that government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services rather than manufactured goods - out of scope. 

B. concludes, only from the claim that one aspect of professional sports teams' competition requires no antitrust regulation, that no other aspect of their business does - The owner focuses solely on the aspect of on-field sports competition and ignores other business aspects of sports enterprises (like media rights, merchandise sales, or sponsorship deals) that might still require antitrust regulation to ensure fair competition. What if, without the antitrust rules in other areas, it is ultimately the customer who pays through higher subscription costs and high merchandise costs? 

C. fails to consider that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers rather than in the interest of the businesses regulated - opposite. 

D. presumes, without providing justification, that a professional sports team can gain a significant business advantage through consistently strong competition in sports events - how they "can gain a significant business advantage" is out of scope. Our scope is to find the flaw. 

E. makes no distinction, explicit or implicit, between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition - "other types of sports competition" is out of scope. 
User avatar
jain67
Joined: 17 Jan 2022
Last visit: 22 Oct 2024
Posts: 54
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 52
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Leadership
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q85 V81 DI80
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q85 V81 DI80
Posts: 54
Kudos: 18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi MartyMurray
I chose C because the evidence of the argument clearly stated that "government antitrust regulations.......Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition",
but the author concluded in terms of business and not consumers.
What is wrong with my reasoning?
User avatar
mollyweasley
Joined: 15 Oct 2020
Last visit: 25 Aug 2024
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 8
Posts: 37
Kudos: 25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja KarishmaB gmatophobia could you please shed some light here?
KittyDoodles
MartyMurray
The author of the argument concludes the following:

Thus, no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

In the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition. Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items.

We see that the author has reasoned that, because "an essential part of their business competition" is "needed to help the teams profit," "no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises."

The correct answer must point out a flaw in that reasoning.

A. fails to consider that government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services rather than manufactured goods

It's true that the argument does involve making the case that antitrust regulation of a type of business that does not provide manufactured goods, professional sports teams, is not needed.

However, in making the argument, the author does not do what this choice says.

Rather, the author makes a case for not regulating professional sports teams even if it is the case that "government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services."

B. concludes, only from the claim that one aspect of professional sports teams' competition requires no antitrust regulation, that no other aspect of their business does

In analyzing the argument, we see that integral to the evidence provided in support of the conclusion is the following:

In the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition.

Notice that the argument describes sports competition as the "main product" and "an essential part" of the business of professional sports teams. Thus, we see that this integral component of the evidence is about only PART of the business of professional sports teams. After all, the "main product" is not all of the products of their businesses, and "an essential part" is only part of their business.

So, we can see that the argument arrives at the conclusion that antitrust regulations aren't needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises overall on the basis of information about only part, i.e., "an aspect," of what these enterprises do.

In other words, a broad, general conclusion is supported by only narrow evidence, meaning that the conclusion goes beyond what the evidence clearly supports.

Thus, we can see that this choice points out a way in which the argument is flawed.

C. fails to consider that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers rather than in the interest of the businesses regulated

This choice is incorrect because it does not accurately describe what the argument does.

Reviewing the passage, we see that it says the following:

Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition.

So, the argument clearly DOES consider "that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers."

Since this choice conflicts with what the passage does, it's clearly incorrect.

D. presumes, without providing justification, that a professional sports team can gain a significant business advantage through consistently strong competition in sports events

Notice that the point of the argument is that, antitrust regulation of professional sports teams is not needed because professional sports teams will NOT gain excessive business advantages.

Thus, in saying that the argument presumes that "a professional sports team CAN gain a significant business advantage," this choice basically goes against the point of the argument.

So, this choice doesn't accurately describe what the argument does and thus cannot describe a flaw in the argument.

E. makes no distinction, explicit or implicit, between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition

It's true that the argument makes no distinction between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition. However, making such a distinction is not necessary for the argument to work. After all, the argument is about the business dynamics among professional sports teams only, and the information provided about those types of businesses is sufficient for the argument to work.

So, the fact that the argument makes no distinction between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition is not a flaw in the argument.

The correct answer is
Hi MartyMurray,

I'm still not able to understand how Option C is incorrect.

As per the passage we see "Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition, which ultimately affects consumer prices". However when arriving at the conclusion we see the author has used the reasoning that "But in the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition. Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items". Thus to arrive at the conclusion the author hasn't stated how consumers will be affected by no anti-trust regulations.

Thanks
Kitty
­
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 15,420
Own Kudos:
69,198
 [4]
Given Kudos: 446
Location: Pune, India
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,420
Kudos: 69,198
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Bunuel
Sports team owner: Government antitrust regulations are designed to prevent one business from gaining an excessive advantage over others. Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition, which ultimately affects consumer prices. But in the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition. Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items. Thus, no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises.

The sports team owner's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

A. fails to consider that government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services rather than manufactured goods

B. concludes, only from the claim that one aspect of professional sports teams' competition requires no antitrust regulation, that no other aspect of their business does

C. fails to consider that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers rather than in the interest of the businesses regulated

D. presumes, without providing justification, that a professional sports team can gain a significant business advantage through consistently strong competition in sports events

E. makes no distinction, explicit or implicit, between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition
­

Premises of team owner:
- Government antitrust regulations (GAR) are designed to prevent one business from gaining an excessive advantage over others.
- Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition, which ultimately affects consumer prices.
- But in the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, "sports competition" is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition.
- Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items.

Conclusion: No antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises.

The owner is saying that by its very nature, this business needs healthy competition, hence GAR are not required. The business owners themselves will ensure that there is healthy competition. Hence the govt doesn't need to worry about regulations for consumer benefit. It will be taken care of by the business owners themselves.

A. fails to consider that government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services rather than manufactured goods

The discussion is about sports businesses vs other businesses regarding need for GAR. The discussion is not about goods vs services. 

B. concludes, only from the claim that one aspect of professional sports teams' competition requires no antitrust regulation, that no other aspect of their business does

The owner says that "sports competition" is their main product but what about other products from which they earn profits e.g. sports merchandise? What if one business takes advantage of its strong position and controls the sponsors and stadium revenues? Even though  one product does not require GAR, other products from which the business earns revenue could require GAR.
Hence this is a flaw in the argument. 

C. fails to consider that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers rather than in the interest of the businesses regulated

The owner does say that such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition, which ultimately affects consumer prices.
Understand the context here. He says the govt establishes GAR to keep competition among businesses to safeguard public interest. But in case of sports businesses, the businesses themselves need competition. So they will not try to get rid of competition. So GAR is not required. (implying that public interest will be automatically taken care of).
He does not imply that GAR is intended in the interest of businesses. He mentions quite contrary to that himself. He doesn't say that in sports, businesses flourish without GAR so we don't need GAR. He says that in sports, businesses themselves need competition so public interest will be safeguarded automatically. 


D. presumes, without providing justification, that a professional sports team can gain a significant business advantage through consistently strong competition in sports events

He does not presume that a professional sports team can gain business advantage through consistently strong competition. He claims that  professional sports team need strong competition for profit. It is a requirement for profit. How business advantage can be gained is not discussed. 

E. makes no distinction, explicit or implicit, between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition

The discussion is about sports businesses vs other businesses regarding need for GAR. The discussion is not about team based sports vs other sports. 

Answer (B)
 
User avatar
Diwen2000
Joined: 29 Jan 2024
Last visit: 17 Oct 2024
Posts: 19
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 19
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am confused about E.
But in the case of professional sports teams......Thus, no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises.

I thought that the evidence is about team sports only but the conclusion is all types of sports.
Or, am i equating sports teams with team-based sports wrongly?

Need experts reply.
KarishmaB MartyMurray gmatophobia
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 15,420
Own Kudos:
69,198
 [1]
Given Kudos: 446
Location: Pune, India
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,420
Kudos: 69,198
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Diwen2000
I am confused about E.
But in the case of professional sports teams......Thus, no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises.

I thought that the evidence is about team sports only but the conclusion is all types of sports.
Or, am i equating sports teams with team-based sports wrongly?

Need experts reply.
KarishmaB MartyMurray gmatophobia
­Sports teams are "Detroit Tigers" of baseball and "Mumbai Indians" of cricket and "Ferrari" and "McLaren" of F1.
Whether the sport is a team sport or individual is not the point.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7108 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts