Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:32) correct
30%
(01:37)
wrong
based on 553
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles will require auto manufacturers to incorporate new technology and more costly components in cars. This will drive up the price of cars, both at home and abroad. Therefore, the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets. The argument is most seriously weakened by which of the following?
A. Most of the countries to which U.S. automobiles are exported have recently enacted similar legislation limiting emissions.
B. Non-compliance with the new legislation can be punished with high fines.
C. Training factory workers to use the new technology required to manufacture compliant automobiles will be expensive and time-consuming.
D. Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
E. Environmental groups have been leaning heavily on the auto industry to voluntarily institute such emissions standards.
A. Most of the countries to which U.S. automobiles are exported have recently enacted similar legislation limiting emissions.
B. Non-compliance with the new legislation can be punished with high fines.
C. Training factory workers to use the new technology required to manufacture compliant automobiles will be expensive and time-consuming.
D. Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
E. Environmental groups have been leaning heavily on the auto industry to voluntarily institute such emissions standards.
GROCKIT Explanation:
This question’s conclusion—that the emissions standards legislation will result in the loss of many export markets for cars—rests on the assumption that the U.S. cars will become too expensive to be competitive in those markets. However, if other countries have recently enacted similar legislation, then the costs of domestic automobiles in those markets are likely to increase as well, which would allow the U.S. exports to raise their prices without becoming too expensive to sell.
A. This is the credited response. If many markets to which the U.S. exports cars have enacted similar legislation, it is likely that the costs of their domestic autos have increased as well, which might be sufficient to keep U.S. prices competitive even as those prices increase.
D. The possibility of auto manufacturers relocating their plants has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument.
I agree with the OA.
But, as per choice (D), relocation to countries with no stringent standards by SOME manufacturers will definitely not drive up prices of SUCH manufacturers. Hence, this will not result in the loss of SOME (if not MANY) export markets. So, this WEAKENS the argument, at least to SOME extent. Definitely not as much choice (A) does.
But why does the explanation of choice (D) say that it has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? Am I missing something in the structure of the argument itself?
Many thanks & kudos are on their way
This question’s conclusion—that the emissions standards legislation will result in the loss of many export markets for cars—rests on the assumption that the U.S. cars will become too expensive to be competitive in those markets. However, if other countries have recently enacted similar legislation, then the costs of domestic automobiles in those markets are likely to increase as well, which would allow the U.S. exports to raise their prices without becoming too expensive to sell.
A. This is the credited response. If many markets to which the U.S. exports cars have enacted similar legislation, it is likely that the costs of their domestic autos have increased as well, which might be sufficient to keep U.S. prices competitive even as those prices increase.
D. The possibility of auto manufacturers relocating their plants has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument.
I agree with the OA.
But, as per choice (D), relocation to countries with no stringent standards by SOME manufacturers will definitely not drive up prices of SUCH manufacturers. Hence, this will not result in the loss of SOME (if not MANY) export markets. So, this WEAKENS the argument, at least to SOME extent. Definitely not as much choice (A) does.
But why does the explanation of choice (D) say that it has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? Am I missing something in the structure of the argument itself?
Many thanks & kudos are on their way
12 Oct 2012, 11:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
supratim7
As you correctly said the conclusion is : Therefore, the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets.
THUS, Our main concern in this argument is export out of USA to other countries. Relocation of plant to other countries is too far ahead of the question and out of scope. We have NO IDEA how this help. IT might NOT actually save ANY cost or it might BE MORE expensive because of cost of land, labour etc etc. IN CR we cant assume that the it will be cheaper and hence we will save money. THUS it wont have any effect on our conclusion. Plus We have a clear cut choice of answer infront of us i.e A
Hope it helps!
12 Oct 2012, 11:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi. Option D says about moving the production plant to a new location with lesser stringent laws.
Well, that would still require the cars (automobiles) to be fitted with the costlier components that are required to meet the new emission laws.
As it talks about production plants, it sort of goes out of scope.
Hope it helps..
Well, that would still require the cars (automobiles) to be fitted with the costlier components that are required to meet the new emission laws.
As it talks about production plants, it sort of goes out of scope.
Hope it helps..
