It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 08:42

### 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

# The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 337

Kudos [?]: 1221 [4], given: 18

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Feb 2012, 15:15
4
KUDOS
15
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:35) correct 54% (01:32) wrong based on 908 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products

What's wrong with c?
I thought that since safety regulation codes are uinform, the size of companies doesn't matter, which weaken the argument above. (By the way, what are safety codes? )
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 1221 [4], given: 18

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 122

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 2

Re: PT #9 CR 7 The excessive number of safety regulations that t [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Feb 2012, 16:01
" it says more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones
"

C safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company

does not do anything to weaken the conclusion

A provides the option that small businesses will go through pain as well since they dont have money

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 2

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 889

Kudos [?]: 718 [5], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: PT #9 CR 7 The excessive number of safety regulations that t [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2012, 00:10
5
KUDOS
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products
What's wrong with c?
I thought that since safety regulation codes are uinform, the size of companies doesn't matter, which weaken the argument above. (By the way, what are safety codes? )

Choice C actually strengthen the argument because the effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size. This choice is the same kind with choice B

Choice D the larger size of companies, the more profits those companies get. => not really relate to the complex operation and money for requirement in term of positive effects to the large companies

Choice E is the same with D

Choice A states that, the ability of small companies to reverse capital If the policy changes happen is worse than that of big ones. So, small companies will get more hurts.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 718 [5], given: 44

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 389

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 13

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: PT #9 CR 7 The excessive number of safety regulations that t [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2012, 03:05
The problem with C is it neither supports small companies nor the large companies. It seems to have a neutral stand with respect to the argument. So, it cannot weaken the argument. Per LR Bible, the weaken statements must destroy the argument.

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 13

Current Student
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Posts: 39

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 45

Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.49
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2013, 21:40
The conclusion of the argument is given in the first sentence. "The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones."
The argument would be weakened if the options would negate the conclusion i.e. the regulations must prove more harmful to the smaller businesses than the bigger ones.
A gives a perfect reason for negation. Rest all do not influence the argument in that way.
C is out of scope as there is no mention of safety codes in the argument.

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 45

Intern
Joined: 29 Sep 2013
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2013, 09:51
I still don't understand.
"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " Well if they have more money reserved for this (option A) that wont change the money the large companies will spend and the complexity operations they will have to alter. Having money reserved simply will not have the same impact for them than for the small companies.
Why you guys are only talking about "serious hardships" as they are related with the difficulty that the companies have to pay in contrast with the amount of money they have to pay and the complexity of the operations they have to change? That's what is this about, its explained in the last sentence.
Option A doens't weaken the last sentence. Why am I wrong?

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 80

Kudos [?]: 96 [5], given: 2

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2013, 10:48
5
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
crashkeeper wrote:
I still don't understand.
"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " Well if they have more money reserved for this (option A) that wont change the money the large companies will spend and the complexity operations they will have to alter. Having money reserved simply will not have the same impact for them than for the small companies.
Why you guys are only talking about "serious hardships" as they are related with the difficulty that the companies have to pay in contrast with the amount of money they have to pay and the complexity of the operations they have to change? That's what is this about, its explained in the last sentence.
Option A doens't weaken the last sentence. Why am I wrong?

"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " - This is the premise (notice the word 'since')

We need to focus on the conclusion which states that: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.
That is why the focus is on "serious hardships" and argument concludes that its harder for big businesses than small ones. Since we need to weaken this, we need to show that small businesses also face serious hardships.
Choice A is the only option that states that small companies are less likely to have capital reserves (which means less money for long term capital investment) which means they would face also face serious hardships just like large companies face.

Hope this helps!
_________________

Kudos if I helped

Kudos [?]: 96 [5], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 75

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 3: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 2.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2013, 09:15
igotthis wrote:
crashkeeper wrote:
I still don't understand.
"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " Well if they have more money reserved for this (option A) that wont change the money the large companies will spend and the complexity operations they will have to alter. Having money reserved simply will not have the same impact for them than for the small companies.
Why you guys are only talking about "serious hardships" as they are related with the difficulty that the companies have to pay in contrast with the amount of money they have to pay and the complexity of the operations they have to change? That's what is this about, its explained in the last sentence.
Option A doens't weaken the last sentence. Why am I wrong?

"Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements. " - This is the premise (notice the word 'since')

We need to focus on the conclusion which states that: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.
That is why the focus is on "serious hardships" and argument concludes that its harder for big businesses than small ones. Since we need to weaken this, we need to show that small businesses also face serious hardships.
Choice A is the only option that states that small companies are less likely to have capital reserves (which means less money for long term capital investment) which means they would face also face serious hardships just like large companies face.

Hope this helps!

Hello,

Conclusion - The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.

We should look for answer choice that do not imply MORE serious hardships for big businesses. It includes either same hardship or less hardship.

Choice A: It implies More hardship on small business than on large business. Agree (Weaken the argument)

Choice B: It implies equal hardship on both the business. Then, why it is not the correct Ans ???

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 75

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 354

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 70

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2013, 11:42
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products

Premise- large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements[/color]

Conclusion- The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones.

complex operations + more money spend ---> hardship

but , if you dont have reserves for improvement as in case of small companies-----> hardship increased

Hence 'A'.

c) safety regulation codes are uniformly established ------> proportionally same effort on behalf of both... large/ small companies. hence wrong.

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 70

Math Forum Moderator
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3003

Kudos [?]: 1085 [0], given: 325

Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2013, 10:35
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.
_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Kudos [?]: 1085 [0], given: 325

Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 47 [3], given: 83

Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2014, 17:03
3
KUDOS
Abhishek009 wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.

Isn't that a weakener what you just said 'if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.-- this would mean that won't have to shed so much for the change. WEAKENS.

Kudos [?]: 47 [3], given: 83

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 831 [2], given: 5

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2014, 15:09
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
gauravkaushik8591 wrote:
Abhishek009 wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.

Isn't that a weakener what you just said 'if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.-- this would mean that won't have to shed so much for the change. WEAKENS.

D strengthens the argument that these regulation changes pose more hardships for larger businesses because less of their profits can be dedicated to comply with new regulations. Whereas small companies could devote 100% of profits to change, larger companies would have a smaller percentage available to spend because the funds are already dedicated to other businesses.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 831 [2], given: 5

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 446

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 58

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2014, 21:51
KyleWiddison wrote:
gauravkaushik8591 wrote:
New safety regulations problem for large companies

To shift to the Federal regulations , bigger firms have to spend more , since their scale of operations is larger than smaller ones.

We need to attack the blue highlighted part to weaken the argument.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement. - Can weaken the argument.

b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. - Operations is not the criteria for attacking the Conclusion .

c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company - It's true that safety regulations are same , a stated in the passage , we understand that both smaller as well as bigger firms have to alter the operation process , but it is not weakening the stated argument anyway.

d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. - This is a strengthener , if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.

e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products - Out of scope , we aren't interested about diversification.

Isn't that a weakener what you just said 'if large companies have more accumulated funds it won't be a problem for them to change as per federal regulations.-- this would mean that won't have to shed so much for the change. WEAKENS.

D strengthens the argument that these regulation changes pose more hardships for larger businesses because less of their profits can be dedicated to comply with new regulations. Whereas small companies could devote 100% of profits to change, larger companies would have a smaller percentage available to spend because the funds are already dedicated to other businesses.

KW[/quote]
Hi Kyle,

Can you explain what's wrong with B?

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 58

Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 600

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 41

Schools: Cambridge'16
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2014, 21:13
The conclusion say that there is no matter where you get money (in reserves as A says or your uncle gives you) the larger companies spend money more than small companies because more operations. Answer B says that the operations the same that means that the same money.

for me B

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 41

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 831 [2], given: 5

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2014, 11:00
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
ronr34 wrote:
Hi Kyle,

Can you explain what's wrong with B?

B is a tempting answer here. It states that the underlying technologies are the same for both large and small companies, leading us to potentially believe that the hardships will be the same for both - thus weakening the answer. Let's go back to the argument and read it very carefully. It states that "Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations...". The premise is pointing to the fact that due to the scale of the operations of large companies (not the technology used), large companies have more complex, and difficult to change, operations. Think of it this way: bicycles and BMWs run on the same "technology" (a motor making wheels go around), but the BMW is much more complex and therefore much more difficult and costly to change. Even though B is a tempting answer, it is not our strongest choice for weakening the conclusion.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 831 [2], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 May 2015, 07:57
tuanquang269 wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products
What's wrong with c?
I thought that since safety regulation codes are uinform, the size of companies doesn't matter, which weaken the argument above. (By the way, what are safety codes? )

Choice C actually strengthen the argument because the effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size. This choice is the same kind with choice B

Choice D the larger size of companies, the more profits those companies get. => not really relate to the complex operation and money for requirement in term of positive effects to the large companies

Choice E is the same with D

Choice A states that, the ability of small companies to reverse capital If the policy changes happen is worse than that of big ones. So, small companies will get more hurts.

I am still not able to rule out C.If effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size,then why big companies will face hardship?
However,I understood that A is also contender.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 831 [3], given: 5

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 May 2015, 21:27
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
ssriva2 wrote:
I am still not able to rule out C.If effect of regulations' changes is the same with all businesses whether the companies are big or small in term of size,then why big companies will face hardship?
However,I understood that A is also contender.

Let me see if I can clarify C a bit. C states that the regulations "codes" are uniform without regard to company size. It doesn't say the effect of the changes is the same. Let's say there is a code that requires all vehicles to accelerate to 60 miles per hour and then come to a stop in less than 300 feet. That would be a reasonable task for a small, two-door car. For a large, fully-loaded tanker truck, however, this would be a much harder task. Back to our question - if the code is the same and doesn't have any adjustments for size the changes could easily create larger hardships for larger organizations. This would strengthen the argument.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 831 [3], given: 5

Current Student
Joined: 14 Sep 2013
Posts: 85

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 15

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 540 Q48 V17
GMAT 2: 630 Q49 V27
GMAT 3: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2015, 00:56
Premise:Large businesses do everything on large scale;Thus have to alter complex operations and spend large amount of money to bring the changes.

Came across A with POE
D-does not weaken
E-same as D does not weaken
c-I think it is reverse answer.It strengthen the argument little bit,but does not weaken for sure.
If regulations are uniform,then government did not consider that regulations may affect bigger businesses more than it affect small businesses.
b-no doubt technology is same but this does not weaken the argument.Because argument's reasoning is that regulations impact large business,as large businesses do everything on large scale.Small businesses can have same technology as large businesses have ,but small businesses do not operate on large scale.
A-best answer.If small businesses have no capital for regulations,they may get out of business.Whereas large businesses may face difficulty to bring regulations but will be able to attain so.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 15

CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2604

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 182

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2016, 20:05
eybrj2 wrote:
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government has placed on industry poses more serious hardships for big businesses than for small ones. Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
a) small companies are less likely than large companies to have the capital reserves for improvement.
b) the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
c) safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
d) large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
e) large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products

What's wrong with c?
I thought that since safety regulation codes are uinform, the size of companies doesn't matter, which weaken the argument above. (By the way, what are safety codes? )

you, mother ducker..do not write your thoughts in the question stem..it makes harder for everyone to objectively analyse the question...
I went with A.
Argument says -> more pressure is on big companies than on small ones.
A says that while big companies have \$ to adapt, small ones have to go out of business. directly weakens the argument.

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 182

Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 4

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2016, 14:21
KyleWiddison wrote:
ronr34 wrote:
Hi Kyle,

Can you explain what's wrong with B?

B is a tempting answer here. It states that the underlying technologies are the same for both large and small companies, leading us to potentially believe that the hardships will be the same for both - thus weakening the answer. Let's go back to the argument and read it very carefully. It states that "Since large companies do everything on a more massive scale, they must alter more complex operations...". The premise is pointing to the fact that due to the scale of the operations of large companies (not the technology used), large companies have more complex, and difficult to change, operations. Think of it this way: bicycles and BMWs run on the same "technology" (a motor making wheels go around), but the BMW is much more complex and therefore much more difficult and costly to change. Even though B is a tempting answer, it is not our strongest choice for weakening the conclusion.

KW

even though bicycle and BMW run on same technology it does not say that it is difficult for the companies manufacturing BMW than that of bicycle because the machines that are being used or technology or spare parts are similar. May be the sizes vary making us to think it is difficult in BMW companies but it does not. Some times it is difficult for companies which manufactures small size products like screws or nails to change their technology due to precision. So such conclusion cannot be built based on sizes or parts or end products.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 4

Re: The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal   [#permalink] 12 Oct 2016, 14:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by