Bunuel wrote:
Statement of a United States copper mining company: Import quotas should be imposed on the less expensive copper mined outside the country to maintain the price of copper in this country; otherwise, our companies will not be able to stay in business.
Response of a United States copper wire manufacturer: United States wire and cable manufacturers purchase about 70 percent of the copper mined in the United States. If the copper prices we pay are not at the international level, our sales will drop, and then the demand for United States copper will go down.
If the factual information presented by both companies is accurate, the best assessment of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the wire manufacturer’s argument
(A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company
(B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company
(C) shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business
(D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business
(E) establishes that even the mining company’s business will prosper if the mining company’s proposal is rejected
Copper mining company: Copper mined outside US is cheaper. Have an import quota on it (e.g. only 100k tonnes can be imported every year etc). Else, we will need to reduce our prices (else copper users will buy from outside US for all their needs). We need to maintain our higher prices to stay in business.
Copper using company: We buy 70% of our copper from US. If we don't pay cheaper prices, we will not be competitive and our sales will go down. So demand for US copper will go down. (In effect saying that then we will not be able to buy much from you anyway since our demand would be low)
The Copper using company's argument is...
(A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company
It is not irrelevant to the mining company's proposal. It makes a point why mining company's proposal will hurt the mining company itself.
(B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company
It is not circular. It does not presuppose what it sets out to prove. It tells why lower prices of copper are needed for both - mining companies and wire manufacturers
(C) shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business
True. It shows how lower prices would reduce the demand for US copper and hence hurt the mining companies themselves. This is the answer
(D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business
It does not fail to give a reason why mining company's proposal should not be put in effect. It gives a reason why it should not be put in effect.
(E) establishes that even the mining company’s business will prosper if the mining company’s proposal is rejected
It talks about how mining company's business will be harmed if the proposal is accepted. It does not say that their business will prosper if the proposal is rejected. The business may still not "prosper" if the proposal is rejected.
Answer (C)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep