iMyself wrote:
Steve: New regulations imposed by the government are going to stifle growth in the mining industry. The new regulations will cause mine owners to have to spend millions of dollars to bring their operations into compliance. The money spent on these upgrades means there is less money to pay workers and therefore a decrease in the amount of mining work done.
Jane: But the money spent upgrading the mines will make them safer. Increased safety measures mean that fewer miners are injured and they are able to spend more time on the job and less time on medical leave.
Jane responds to Steve by__________
A. indicating that Steve lacks any evidence for his claim
B. disputing the accuracy of the facts Steve presents for his conclusion
C. suggesting that Steve has not fully considered all the ramifications of the policy he objects to
D. accepting Steve’s conclusion while at the same time introducing a new consideration
E. agreeing with Steve’s primary conclusion but disputing his secondary conclusion
Source: McGraw-Hill's GMAT
The following is my approach on this question. If anyone has comments, please let me know.
- Steve:
+ posits that government's regulations will impede mining industry's growth [this is his conclusion]
+ supports his conclusion by reasoning that money spent on compliance means less pay for workers -> fewer workers -> less work done
- Jane:
+ says that money spent on upgrading will increase safety for workers -> increase time on job
* The word "but" in Jane's argument expresses her disagreement with Steve. What does she disagree on? Conclusion? Evidence? Clearly, she disagree on his conclusion. By stating a positive impact of regulations (increase safety for workers -> increase time on job), Jane concludes that regulations will not stifle mining industry's growth. In another word, she undermines Steve's conclusion.
Now let take a look at all answer choices:
A. indicating that Steve lacks any evidence for his claim=> Jane doesn't not mention it. In fact, she seems to accept his evidence.
B. disputing the accuracy of the facts Steve presents for his conclusion=> As I mentioned in option (A), Jane doesn't dispute any facts Steve gives to support his conclusion
C. suggesting that Steve has not fully considered all the ramifications of the policy he objects toYes, this is right. Jane points out a positive effect of regulations on mining industry that Steve doesn't consider.
D. accepting Steve’s conclusion while at the same time introducing a new considerationThis is wrong. Jane doesn't accept Steve's conclusion
E. agreeing with Steve’s primary conclusion but disputing his secondary conclusionWrong! Jane doesn't accept any conclusion from Steve