Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 06:36 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 06:36
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
605-655 Level|   Weaken|      
User avatar
akela
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Last visit: 23 May 2023
Posts: 1,227
Own Kudos:
5,929
 [9]
Given Kudos: 128
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 1,227
Kudos: 5,929
 [9]
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 22 Jul 2017, 09:42
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:55) correct 34% (01:58) wrong based on 675 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks in our country be managed by private companies rather than the government. A similar privatization of the telecommunications industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition among a variety of telephone companies to improve service and force down prices. Therefore, the privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the politician’s argument?

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.
(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.
(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.
(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Kudos! :wink:
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
E
User avatar
akshayk
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Last visit: 21 Sep 2020
Posts: 273
Own Kudos:
414
 [4]
Given Kudos: 99
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Posts: 273
Kudos: 414
 [4]
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 22 Jul 2017, 09:57
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Akela
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks in our country be managed by private companies rather than the government. A similar privatization of the telecommunications industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition among a variety of telephone companies to improve service and force down prices. Therefore, the privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the politician’s argument?

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.
(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.
(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.
(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Kudos! :wink:
Show more

Proposal to manage national parks by private companies. Similar privatisation of the telecom industry INCREASED competition that eventually benefited the consumer. Thus, privatising national parks will benefit in the same way.

This entire argument hinges on competition creating value for the customer.

A - Neither strengthen nor weakens the argument. OUT
B - The argument is talking about benefit to consumers, and not the economy, or the job market. OUT.
C - Customer knowledge isn't under discussion, OUT.
D - Close, but still not the answer as we have a better option in E. This option states that it will only benefit some consumers, but it will still benefit consumers. The number of customers it benefits isn't up for debate. OUT.
E - YES!!! If privatisation doesn't generate enough interest, then it will not benefit the consumer in the same way as the telecom industry, or it may not benefit the consumer at all. It might be a non-event.

Answer is E.
avatar
gmatter923
avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2020
Last visit: 09 Jan 2022
Posts: 17
Own Kudos:
16
Given Kudos: 263
Location: India
Schools: ISB'22
Schools: ISB'22
Posts: 17
Kudos: 16
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 28 Mar 2020, 15:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I got the answer but have a doubt.

Is option D weakening or strengthening the argument?

kindly help. GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, VeritasKarishma

Thanks in advance. :)
avatar
Yellkrishna
avatar
Joined: 12 Dec 2019
Last visit: 21 Apr 2021
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
41
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 53
Kudos: 41
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 28 Mar 2020, 18:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. The political aspect of the privatisation is not being discussed here. It is the benefit to the customers that is being discussed.
B. Nothing that says that it won’t benefit the customers.
C. People can benefit without knowing whether it is run by private or not. To weaken it, one must establish that a particular case will not benefit the customer.
D. The size of the customer base is irrelevant.
E. Argument says that privatisation allowed competition among companies which improved quality given to customers. But id there is no competition, the assumption falls flat. Hence E.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,003
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,003
 [1]
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 30 Mar 2020, 00:09
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Akela
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks in our country be managed by private companies rather than the government. A similar privatization of the telecommunications industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition among a variety of telephone companies to improve service and force down prices. Therefore, the privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the politician’s argument?

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.
(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.
(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.
(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Kudos! :wink:
Show more

Politician - Privatization of the tele industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition. Service have improved and prices have gone down.
Conclusion - Privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

We need to weaken this. We can do that by showing how what works for tele industry may not work for national parks.

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.

Political expediency is irrelevant. The argument doesn't deal with what is best politically.

(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.

We are only talking about the measure benefitting customers. Rest of the impact is irrelevant.

(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.

Irrelevant whether people know or not.

(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Doesn't matter. As long as it will benefit consumers to some extent, the argument holds. It doesn't do much either for or against the argument. But if we had to pick one, it helps the argument by saying that consumers will be benefitted. To weaken, we need to increase the probability that consumers will not be benefitted.

(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

This tells us that the factor that benefitted tele consumers (competition) may not play out that well in case of national parks. Hence the consumers may not benefit.

Answer (E)
User avatar
Shahalikhan
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2019
Last visit: 08 May 2023
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
116
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,121
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Anderson '24 Booth '24 CEIBS '24 Columbia CBS '24 Goizueta '24 ESADE Foster '24 Fuqua '24 Haas '24 Harvard '24 HKUST IESE '24 IMD '22 ISB '23 Johnson '24 Judge '23 Kellogg '24 Kenan-Flagler '24 LBS '24 McCombs '24 McDonough '24 NTU NUS Said '23 Ross '24 Rotman '24 Erasmus Bocconi Sloan '24 Stanford '24 Tepper '24 Tuck '24 Warwick "23 Wharton '24 Yale '24
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.51
WE:General Management (Computer Software)
Schools: Anderson '24 Booth '24 CEIBS '24 Columbia CBS '24 Goizueta '24 ESADE Foster '24 Fuqua '24 Haas '24 Harvard '24 HKUST IESE '24 IMD '22 ISB '23 Johnson '24 Judge '23 Kellogg '24 Kenan-Flagler '24 LBS '24 McCombs '24 McDonough '24 NTU NUS Said '23 Ross '24 Rotman '24 Erasmus Bocconi Sloan '24 Stanford '24 Tepper '24 Tuck '24 Warwick "23 Wharton '24 Yale '24
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V37
Posts: 59
Kudos: 116
 [1]
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 30 Mar 2020, 00:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
the argument assumes national parks works the similar way as telecommunication industry.We can predict the answer as something that weakens this assumption.

that is national parks and telecommunication industries are structurally different.

only option E comes near that
User avatar
Shahalikhan
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2019
Last visit: 08 May 2023
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
116
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,121
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Anderson '24 Booth '24 CEIBS '24 Columbia CBS '24 Goizueta '24 ESADE Foster '24 Fuqua '24 Haas '24 Harvard '24 HKUST IESE '24 IMD '22 ISB '23 Johnson '24 Judge '23 Kellogg '24 Kenan-Flagler '24 LBS '24 McCombs '24 McDonough '24 NTU NUS Said '23 Ross '24 Rotman '24 Erasmus Bocconi Sloan '24 Stanford '24 Tepper '24 Tuck '24 Warwick "23 Wharton '24 Yale '24
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.51
WE:General Management (Computer Software)
Schools: Anderson '24 Booth '24 CEIBS '24 Columbia CBS '24 Goizueta '24 ESADE Foster '24 Fuqua '24 Haas '24 Harvard '24 HKUST IESE '24 IMD '22 ISB '23 Johnson '24 Judge '23 Kellogg '24 Kenan-Flagler '24 LBS '24 McCombs '24 McDonough '24 NTU NUS Said '23 Ross '24 Rotman '24 Erasmus Bocconi Sloan '24 Stanford '24 Tepper '24 Tuck '24 Warwick "23 Wharton '24 Yale '24
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V37
Posts: 59
Kudos: 116
 [1]
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 30 Mar 2020, 00:31
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatter923
I got the answer but have a doubt.

Is option D weakening or strengthening the argument?

kindly help. GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, VeritasKarishma

Thanks in advance. :)
Show more


thats irrevelent. we are not considering the general public.

Therefore, the privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well
User avatar
VirFortis
User avatar
Joined: 08 Mar 2021
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 67
Own Kudos:
82
Given Kudos: 106
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: Haas '24 Ross '24 Tepper '24
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Haas '24 Ross '24 Tepper '24
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
Posts: 67
Kudos: 82
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 19 Jul 2021, 19:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatter923
I got the answer but have a doubt.

Is option D weakening or strengthening the argument?

kindly help. GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, VeritasKarishma

Thanks in advance. :)
Show more

As we wait for the experts to chip in, please allow me to give my two cents -

Argument: Benefit to consumers due to increased competition.

(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry. -> This strengthens the argument. WHY: even if benefit is small, the benefit is still there, hence the proposal holds.

In Contrast,
(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry. -> This weakens the argument, as it hurts the cause(more competition) stated to bring the desired outcome(benefit to consumer). If the national parks industry has less competition to start with, the desired outcome is in doubt hence the argument doesn't hold.

Hope this helps.

Let me know if you have any more queries here.
User avatar
VirFortis
User avatar
Joined: 08 Mar 2021
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 67
Own Kudos:
82
Given Kudos: 106
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: Haas '24 Ross '24 Tepper '24
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Haas '24 Ross '24 Tepper '24
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
Posts: 67
Kudos: 82
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 19 Jul 2021, 20:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
"(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.

We are only talking about the measure benefitting customers. Rest of the impact is irrelevant."

VeritasKarishma, why do we assume that unemployment and economic instability is not impacting customers therein not benefitting customers? This seems plausible, and hence is weakening the argument. Is it because that the argument is centred on customers of the industry and not the general public associated with the industry? If yes, can you please help me understand how to formulate this kind of thinking for GMAT, where we are focused on the specific impact (as stated in question stem) instead of using common sense to bridge the gaps?

VeritasKarishma
Akela
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks in our country be managed by private companies rather than the government. A similar privatization of the telecommunications industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition among a variety of telephone companies to improve service and force down prices. Therefore, the privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the politician’s argument?

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.
(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.
(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.
(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Kudos! :wink:

Politician - Privatization of the tele industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition. Service have improved and prices have gone down.
Conclusion - Privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

We need to weaken this. We can do that by showing how what works for tele industry may not work for national parks.

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.

Political expediency is irrelevant. The argument doesn't deal with what is best politically.

(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.

We are only talking about the measure benefitting customers. Rest of the impact is irrelevant.

(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.

Irrelevant whether people know or not.

(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Doesn't matter. As long as it will benefit consumers to some extent, the argument holds. It doesn't do much either for or against the argument. But if we had to pick one, it helps the argument by saying that consumers will be benefitted. To weaken, we need to increase the probability that consumers will not be benefitted.

(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

This tells us that the factor that benefitted tele consumers (competition) may not play out that well in case of national parks. Hence the consumers may not benefit.

Answer (E)
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,003
 [3]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,003
 [3]
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 20 Jul 2021, 23:46
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
L0S3R
"(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.

We are only talking about the measure benefitting customers. Rest of the impact is irrelevant."

VeritasKarishma, why do we assume that unemployment and economic instability is not impacting customers therein not benefitting customers? This seems plausible, and hence is weakening the argument. Is it because that the argument is centred on customers of the industry and not the general public associated with the industry? If yes, can you please help me understand how to formulate this kind of thinking for GMAT, where we are focused on the specific impact (as stated in question stem) instead of using common sense to bridge the gaps?

VeritasKarishma
Akela
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks in our country be managed by private companies rather than the government. A similar privatization of the telecommunications industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition among a variety of telephone companies to improve service and force down prices. Therefore, the privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the politician’s argument?

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.
(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.
(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.
(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Kudos! :wink:

Politician - Privatization of the tele industry has benefited consumers by allowing competition. Service have improved and prices have gone down.
Conclusion - Privatization of the national parks would probably benefit park visitors as well.

We need to weaken this. We can do that by showing how what works for tele industry may not work for national parks.

(A) It would not be politically expedient to privatize the national parks even if doing so would, in the long run, improve service and reduce the fees charged to visitors.

Political expediency is irrelevant. The argument doesn't deal with what is best politically.

(B) The privatization of the telecommunications industry has been problematic in that it has led to significantly increased unemployment and economic instability in that industry.

We are only talking about the measure benefitting customers. Rest of the impact is irrelevant.

(C) The vast majority of people visiting the national parks are unaware of proposals to privatize the management of those parks.

Irrelevant whether people know or not.

(D) Privatizing the national parks would benefit a much smaller number of consumers to a much smaller extent than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

Doesn't matter. As long as it will benefit consumers to some extent, the argument holds. It doesn't do much either for or against the argument. But if we had to pick one, it helps the argument by saying that consumers will be benefitted. To weaken, we need to increase the probability that consumers will not be benefitted.

(E) The privatization of the national parks would produce much less competition between different companies than did the privatization of the telecommunications industry.

This tells us that the factor that benefitted tele consumers (competition) may not play out that well in case of national parks. Hence the consumers may not benefit.

Answer (E)
Show more

CR questions have a very narrow scope. We need to stick to that scope only.
A discussion on any topic can and usually does involve a vast number of factors. A CR question focusses on one or two of those factors only. The other factors are irrelevant to that discussion.

If someone makes a point that "A is good for B", you can support it by saying "Yes, B has been flourishing since A arrived" or you can oppose it by saying "No, B has taken more sick leaves since the arrival of A". But can you oppose the point by saying that "C is good for B?" No. That is not our argument at all. C may or may not be, we don't care.
Our focus has to be on A and B only.

Similarly, an argument that says, "This change will improve my financial position." needs to be countered with how it can worsen my financial situation. Whether this change is good/bad for me in the dept of health/personal relationships/long term career prospects etc is irrelevant to this argument.

Similarly, in our original question, if we are talking about the benefit to the customers, we need to focus on that. Whether it harms the workers of the industry is irrelevant to our argument. We are not being mean here; we are just keeping to the point we are discussing. Don't let your emotions and goodwill interfere. Its impact on workers could be another discussion and the topic for another argument.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,833
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,833
Kudos: 986
Politician: It has been proposed that the national parks 07 Apr 2025, 03:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts