Spending on research and development by United States : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 Feb 2017, 03:57

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Spending on research and development by United States

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 78
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 0

Spending on research and development by United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 00:55
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Spending on research and development by United States businesses for 1984 showed an increase of about 8% over the 1983 level. This increase actually continued a downward trend evident since 1981 - when outlays for reserch and development increase 16.4% over 1980 spending. Clearly, the 25% tax credit enacted by Congress in 1981, which was intended to promote spending on research and development, did little or nothing to stimulate such spending.

The conclusion of the argument above cannot be true unless which of the following is true?

A: Business spending on research and development is usually directly proportional to business profits.
B: Business spending for research and development in 1985 could not increase by more than 8.3%.
C: Had the 1981 tax credit been set higher than 25%, business spending for research and development after 1981 would have increased more than it did.
D: In the absence of the 25% tax credit, business spending for research and development after 1981 would not have been substantially lower than it was.
E: Tax credits marked for specific investments are rarely effective in inducing businesses to make those investments.
_________________

Best regards,

If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 626 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 01:10
Taku wrote:
Spending on research and development by United States businesses for 1984 showed an increase of about 8% over the 1983 level. This increase actually continued a downward trend evident since 1981 - when outlays for reserch and development increase 16.4% over 1980 spending. Clearly, the 25% tax credit enacted by Congress in 1981, which was intended to promote spending on research and development, did little or nothing to stimulate such spending.

The conclusion of the argument above cannot be true unless which of the following is true?

A: Business spending on research and development is usually directly proportional to business profits.
B: Business spending for research and development in 1985 could not increase by more than 8.3%.
C: Had the 1981 tax credit been set higher than 25%, business spending for research and development after 1981 would have increased more than it did.
D: In the absence of the 25% tax credit, business spending for research and development after 1981 would not have been substantially lower than it was.
E: Tax credits marked for specific investments are rarely effective in inducing businesses to make those investments.

1980-1981 16.4%
1983-1984 8%
------------------------
downward trend
------------------------
conclusion: 25% tax credit did little or nothing.
--------------------------------------
the argument said 25% tax credit did little or nothing.
To support the conclusion, we can assume that if no 25%, the downard trend might exist or not exist. That is, try to mitigate the necessary of 25% tax credit.

That's like the rule of thumb. If A, then B, if not A, then not B. Support!
Director
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 559
Location: SF Bay Area, USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 12:26
D)
Think about it, you will figure it out.
VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1493
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 13:57
D: In the absence of the 25% tax credit, business spending for research and development after 1981 would not have been substantially lower than it was.
Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 78
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2005, 00:21
As everyone went with, yes OA is (D). Mine was (E)....

Hello chunjuwa,
you are stating "if A, then B, if not A, then not B". In this case, would (D) mean " if there is no tax credit, business spending for R&D after 1981 would be nearly the same as it was". Am I correct?

chunjuwu wrote:
Taku wrote:
Spending on research and development by United States businesses for 1984 showed an increase of about 8% over the 1983 level. This increase actually continued a downward trend evident since 1981 - when outlays for reserch and development increase 16.4% over 1980 spending. Clearly, the 25% tax credit enacted by Congress in 1981, which was intended to promote spending on research and development, did little or nothing to stimulate such spending.

The conclusion of the argument above cannot be true unless which of the following is true?

A: Business spending on research and development is usually directly proportional to business profits.
B: Business spending for research and development in 1985 could not increase by more than 8.3%.
C: Had the 1981 tax credit been set higher than 25%, business spending for research and development after 1981 would have increased more than it did.
D: In the absence of the 25% tax credit, business spending for research and development after 1981 would not have been substantially lower than it was.
E: Tax credits marked for specific investments are rarely effective in inducing businesses to make those investments.

1980-1981 16.4%
1983-1984 8%
------------------------
downward trend
------------------------
conclusion: 25% tax credit did little or nothing.
--------------------------------------
the argument said 25% tax credit did little or nothing.
To support the conclusion, we can assume that if no 25%, the downard trend might exist or not exist. That is, try to mitigate the necessary of 25% tax credit.

That's like the rule of thumb. If A, then B, if not A, then not B. Support!

_________________

Best regards,

Re: CR - R&D   [#permalink] 21 Mar 2005, 00:21
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Spending on research and development by United States 1 19 May 2015, 21:00
3 In the United States financing of marketing research by 5 25 Oct 2010, 00:58
36 Spending on research and development by United States 22 08 May 2010, 04:35
3 From 1965 to 1988, spending on food in the United States 12 01 Apr 2010, 22:31
In developed countries, such as the United States, the 6 12 Jul 2008, 19:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by