shanks2020
eybrj2
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?

)
Hi
GMATNinja AndrewN @
e-gmatI realised that i undertook the wrong conclusion to weaken. I took "large companies must alter more complex operations and spend more money...." as the main conclusion. However, per the answers, it seems the 1st sentence is the main conclusion. The first however appears as a general information or a given premise.
How to avoid such mistakes?
To add to the earlier dialogue, I often teach my students to look for emotional or judgmental language in both CR and RC passages. Such language offers insights into the authorial presence. The first line here is too slanted to be taken simply as background information:
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.Who thinks the number of regulations is
excessive? Who thinks big businesses suffer a heavier burden as a result? We have two indications in the same sentence that someone is stating an opinion or making a claim, rather than the passage laying out, on neutral ground, information from which we can later draw to assess an argument that may appear.
I always like to put myself to the test and answer questions on my own before I offer my thoughts. This one was pretty easy to narrow down to (A) and (B). I went with (A) in the end because I felt it was the harder to argue against, falling more in line with the
weaken task of the question stem.
Thank you,
shanks2020, for drawing my attention to the question. It was not one I had seen before. I hope my response helps in your studies.
- Andrew