Last visit was: 23 Jul 2024, 10:02 It is currently 23 Jul 2024, 10:02
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 237 [5]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Status:faciendo quod indiget fieri
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 109 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Status:Re-take.. The OG just loves me too much.
Posts: 32
Own Kudos [?]: 132 [0]
Given Kudos: 48
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V29
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 237 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
Quote:
Relocation of plant to other countries is too far ahead of the question and out of scope.

Well, doesn't all Strengthen/Weaken need to be a bit "out of scope", "outside the argument", "something new", etc. ? I remember Ron Purewal (MGMAT) categorically mentioned this in one of his post & Thursday study hall. He clearly demonstrated this prognosis in the study hall. Plus, I don't think Choice (D) is blatantly out of scope or outside the realm of the argument.

Quote:
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.

Again, I remember Ron mentioned that Strengthen/Weaken work on "real-world logic" and one is supposed to make "real-world assumptions and inferences". Choice (D) says "Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards." So, this plus given the topic at hand (Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles), we sure can infer some cost advantage. Don't you think so..

Quote:
Plus We have a clear cut choice of answer infront of us i.e A :)

Absolutely. I don't doubt the OA. Just want to understand how choice (D) has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? I mean, does it really have NO EFFECT? :)

Suppose Choice (A) is not there and Choice (D) is has been modified.. i.e.
D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
What would you say then? Would it still have NO EFFECT?

BTW, thank you for taking interest :)
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 174
Own Kudos [?]: 1061 [0]
Given Kudos: 32
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
supratim7 wrote:
Quote:
Relocation of plant to other countries is too far ahead of the question and out of scope.

Well, doesn't all Strengthen/Weaken need to be a bit "out of scope", "outside the argument", "something new", etc. ? I remember Ron Purewal (MGMAT) categorically mentioned this in one of his post & Thursday study hall. He clearly demonstrated this prognosis in the study hall. Plus, I don't think Choice (D) is blatantly out of scope or outside the realm of the argument.

Quote:
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.

Again, I remember Ron mentioned that Strengthen/Weaken work on "real-world logic" and one is supposed to make "real-world assumptions and inferences". Choice (D) says "Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards." So, this plus given the topic at hand (Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles), we sure can infer some cost advantage. Don't you think so..

Quote:
Plus We have a clear cut choice of answer infront of us i.e A :)

Absolutely. I don't doubt the OA. Just want to understand how choice (D) has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? I mean, does it really have NO EFFECT? :)

Suppose Choice (A) is not there and Choice (D) is has been modified.. i.e.
D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.
What would you say then? Would it still have NO EFFECT?

BTW, thank you for taking interest :)


D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.

Even if most of them relocate the market lost is market lost so we are not weaking the conclusion! For example

there are 20 countries of which only 2 of them don't have stringent emissions standards, so this company is still losing out those 18 countries market share so the conclusion still hold.

Now u can ask why not the other way round 18 has NO emissions standards and only 2 has stringent emissions standards, even then these auto folks are gone lose customer in those 2 countries. Customers lost are customers lost. Hence we are still not weakinng the argument

HTH!
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 237 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
Quote:
D. MOST automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards.

Even if most of them relocate the market lost is market lost so we are not weaking the conclusion! For example

there are 20 countries of which only 2 of them don't have stringent emissions standards, so this company is still losing out those 18 countries market share so the conclusion still hold.

Now u can ask why not the other way round 18 has NO emissions standards and only 2 has stringent emissions standards, even then these auto folks are gone lose customer in those 2 countries. Customers lost are customers lost. Hence we are still not weakinng the argument

HTH!


I don't really follow the reasoning you have presented Jp27.

The argument doesn't allow these 2 situations (the ones you have considered).
The argument mentions that only 1 country (US) has enforced stringent emission stds.
So, the hypothetical situation of 18 countries with emission stds & 2 countries with no emission stds and vice-versa doesn't arise.
So, it is between 1 country (US) and other countries.
If we lose "other countries" then it DOESN'T weaken the conclusion (loss of MANY export markets). But, if we lose only US then it DOES weaken the conclusion (loss of MANY export markets)

i.e. 2 scenarios are possible:
A) US manufacturers don't relocate to country X, Y, Z > Comply with US emission > Prices escalate > lose MANY export markets > Conclusion holds
B) US manufacturers relocate to country X, Y, Z > Don't comply with US emission std > Prices don't escalate > lose ONLY US export market > > Conclusion DOESN'T hold

However my bigger point is why the Grockit answer explanation says that choice (D) has NO EFFECT on the conclusion of the argument? Does it really have NO EFFECT?

Thank you for writing in :)
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 174
Own Kudos [?]: 1061 [0]
Given Kudos: 32
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
supratim7 wrote:

i.e. 2 scenarios are possible:
A) US manufacturers don't relocate to country X, Y, Z > Comply with US emission > Prices escalate > lose MANY export markets > Conclusion holds
B) US manufacturers relocate to country X, Y, Z > Don't comply with US emission std > Prices don't escalate > lose ONLY US export market > > Conclusion DOESN'T hold



Why lose export market in the US? they will lose markets in other countries as well.....

And the analogy holds good. We can try attacking from another angle. In weaking Qs if we weaken the assumption we can weaken the argument.
So what's the argument and What's the assumption.

Conclusion -> the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets.

Premise -> 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.

Assumption -> Author should think that ppl in the home country / aboard wont buy cars if the price goes. What if ppl are still willing to buy the cars? what if the cars prices in the other countries have also gone up because of similar regulations in that country as well, then the new US car price wont seem too high . -> this is what is showed in Answer A

Now what happens if were to counter the author with this clain "the US guys will re-locate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards"

The author would simply respond saying that, still US manufacturer will loss markets (in US and aboard), so the legislation will HURT the US manufacturer!
So this indeed has NO Effect!

HTH
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Status:Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Posts: 729
Own Kudos [?]: 1903 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
I agree that Ron had mentioned outside reasoning needs to be present in the correct answer choice at the same time he explained out of scope and outside reasoning presented but they dont have any effect on the argument.

lets look at D closely, there is no where stated about the cost of parts of car in other countries. had it been cheaper in those than it would have weaken, but nothing such is mentioned it is just outside scope or having no effect.
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 269
Own Kudos [?]: 608 [0]
Given Kudos: 82
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
was b/w A and B..chose B..:(
wat abt B?? is not weaken the conclusion

if they will not comply with law..they will punished with high fines??..
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2018
Posts: 71
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 100
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
Would be curious to know such line of thinking is correct. To eliminate D, the line of thought I have is - D talks about relocation to countries with less stringent restrictions. If this has to be true, then conclusion having exports as the main thing wouldn't even exist to talk about. Mostly, I happen to think in such line in weaken and strengthen questions of CR. Maybe this is what is called out of scope as few other folks mentioned.

Thanks!
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2018
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 27
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
I am also confused between option A and D
Since A says that other countries will also implement that same increase hence the increased cost of the exporting country will not be high .
But we are assuming that the cost by which the countries increasing the price are same.
I think A is wrong.

Posted from my mobile device
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 297
Own Kudos [?]: 197 [0]
Given Kudos: 115
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
Well.....D is wrong because of the word SOME.D also requires a lot of assumptions to be made which renders it incorrect.

This is not an airtight question.
Director
Director
Joined: 02 Oct 2017
Posts: 549
Own Kudos [?]: 490 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
I disagree with OA in this question
A does not "Most of the countries to which U.S. automobiles are exported have recently enacted similar legislation limiting emissions"
state how the prices of car will soar.
Selecting A an answer require certain assumptions. I think one sould ignore these kind of questions while practicing
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Feb 2018
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 103 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V32
GPA: 3.86
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
[quote="supratim7"]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.


I will go for A ,
as conlcusion says that due to legislation , price will go up and leads to price rise in export market, so we need to strengthen the argument by looking for some premise which directly says, it wont impact export market
Current Student
Joined: 06 Feb 2016
Status:On the journey of achieving
Affiliations: Senior Manager, CA by profession, CFA(USA) Level 2
Posts: 250
Own Kudos [?]: 170 [0]
Given Kudos: 148
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Finance
GMAT 1: 560 Q44 V23
GMAT 2: 530 Q39 V24
GMAT 3: 580 Q46 V24 (Online)
GMAT 4: 640 Q50 V26
GPA: 3.82
WE:Other (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
gmatexam439 sir I marked Option D because Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not have stringent emissions standards can have some impact on the cost.
In Option A aren't we taking too many assumptions?
We are assuming that the cost increase in other exporting countries is the same as cost increase of export in our country.
Director
Director
Joined: 02 Oct 2017
Posts: 549
Own Kudos [?]: 490 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Send PM
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
A is best choice
Most of the countries to which U.S. automobiles are exported have recently enacted similar legislation limiting emissions
If A is true then it simply would not allow less demand .It would stimulate the demand
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6991 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts