The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government

Though I ain't Charles but still I'll try to be Philip on this one?

The conclusion is about HARDSHIP and the relative seriousness of the hardships.

Hardship occurs when something is troublesome to achieve.
For eg: the poor person faced severe hardships in his childhood. - now whatever hardships he /she faced , if they weren't hard to obtain, would not exist.

What I think is that you have not weighed in on the word HARDSHIP.
When you are full of cash and then eventually end up on the streets you start facing HARDSHIPS ( because the ability to obtain has diminished) .

I'll explain the question-

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.

Passage analysis-
Premise- Large companies do everything ON A LARGER SCALE.
PREMISE- large companies must alter complex operations
Premise- larger companies spend much MORE money
Conclusion- large companies face MORE SERIOUS HARDSHIP than small companies.

Prethinking-
Step 1- try to come up with ideas which would break the authors conclusion !
How to?
- The author is basing his conclusion on the data available about large companies. His conclusion is- MORE SERIOUS HARDSHIP - large companies.

What if the some of the data presented for large companies also existed for small companies? You don't have to think out of the box...just try to use the words from passage.
1.attack premise 2: smaller companies due to "some issue" have even more complex operations !
2. Attack premise 3: what if smaller companies have to spend even more but they can't due to some reason?
3. Attack conclusion- what if due to "some" reason smaller companies face MORE THAN OR EQUAL TO hardships faced by larger companies !( Given the premises)

What do we want-
an answer that would temme that smaller companies face atleast as many hardships as larger companies.

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. - when do we face hardships? When what we want is either too limited or is not available or difficult to obtain. Regulations are changes that are made under the law. Now what if smaller companies cannot afford the regulations and larger companies can/ cannot ( does not matter) - will the conclusion hold? ( MORE HARDSHIPS)

B. the operation of small companies frequently rely on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
- RELY ON SAME TECHNOLOGY- still the conclusion can stand = even if we rely on same technology, the amount of workload or any other factors, except technology, may still influence the HARDSHIPS- the premise already states "MASSIVE SCALE" ..SO MAYBE the workload may still attract a great number of regulations.

C. safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
- strengthener- if the regulations are unanimous across all the companies then it is very likely that because of the relative workload of larger companies,the regulations may impose much more severe regulations and relative HARDSHIPS.

D. large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.- strengthens - you got 10$ n you want to buy 8$ candy and nothing else,it's obtainable for you or easy for you to purchase . Now there 5 items , which each amount to 1$ ( total=5$), that you want to buy and you have to buy the candy also which is still for 8$ . Now you'll be facing HARDSHIPS as there are certain items which are necessary but candy is too and so you'll be in a difficult position to decide which items to sacrifice.
Apply the same logic here. When much of your income is engaged somewhere else , it'll likely be difficult ( because there'll be repercussions for not investing at the intended place) to decide what measures to take to get what is necessary ( here- abiding to regulations)

E. large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products
- same as D. Too many places to invest in and for smaller companies too few . When you have more directed toward few you may not really face any HARDSHIPS period!


Now I know this post is too long to seem attractive but I have written this for those ( like me) who want to know each and every answer and understand it.

Posted from my mobile device