The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government

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.

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.
If small companies are less likely to have the reserves to make changes then making even a small change will be difficult.
Hence weakens the argument

B. the operation of small companies frequently relies on the same technologies as the operations of large companies.
Even if small companies rely on the same technology as big companies, the scale of changes to be made in large companies will be more than small companies due to more expansive operations.

C. safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company
Neither strengthens nor weakens the argument

D. large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.
Strengthens argument

E. large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products
Strengthens argument

Answer (A)

)

KyleWiddison · Accepted Answer

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

igotthis · Answer

"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!

raviram80 · Answer

" 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

tuanquang269 · Answer

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.

crashkeeper · Answer

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?

Abhishek009 · Answer

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.

gauravkaushik8591 · Answer

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.

KyleWiddison · Answer

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

ronr34 · Answer

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 
Hi Kyle,

Can you explain what's wrong with B?

ssriva2 · Answer

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.

KyleWiddison · Answer

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

aragonn · Answer

GMATNinja  - Charles Sir help here pls. Stuck with this Question. read all the comments, but no one is explaining the problem stem. here is my reasoning.

I think A is strengthening the argument. if large companies have the capital reserves for improvement it is possible they can put this for improvement to achieve what gov asks for. and if so chances are they will implement what gov wants. Why go for new if you can save the old. Thanks

AdityaHongunti · Answer

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

KunalP1596 · Answer

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. 
 If small companies are less likely to have the reserves to make changes then making even a small change will be difficult. 
 Hence weakens the argument

B. the operation of small companies frequently relies on the same technologies as the operations of large companies. 
 Even if small companies rely on the same technology as big companies, the scale of changes to be made in large companies will be more than small companies due to more expansive operations.

C. safety regulation codes are uniform established without reference to size of company 
 Neither strengthens nor weakens the argument

D. large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies. 
 Strengthens argument

E. large companies are in general more likely than small companies to diversify their markets and products 
 Strengthens argument

Answer (A)

lakshya14 · Answer

Isn't (D) also showing that big companies won't be struggling, unlike smaller companies?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Lakshya

(D) can be interpreted in multiple ways. It states: large companies typically have more of their profits invested in other businesses than do small companies.

This can be interpreted to mean that large companies have a greater proportion of their profits stashed away compared to smaller companies, allowing them a greater pool to dip into. This interpretation, like you suggest, shows that big companies would find it easier to comply with government regulations.

On the other hand, it can also be interpreted to mean that large companies have a greater proportion of their profits invested in other business, thereby making these profits unavailable for use in a discretionary way (since they have been dedicated to other businesses). In this scenario, this would be a strengthener for the argument - big companies would have a smaller pool to dip from, making it more difficult for them to comply with government regulations.

Overall, it cannot be said with certainty that (D) will weaken the argument, and hence cannot be the correct answer.

Hope this helps.

frankqxq · Answer

Honestly, I find option E to be a very good answer. Since large companies diversify, regulation on industry will not have as big an impact on large firms as on small firms, since production is diversified. So in fact smaller firms will fare worse when they face industry regulation because they are solely focusing on a single industry. If this doesn't weaken the argument I don't know what does. In addition, option A says small firms have a hard time reserving capital. Sure, large firms can reserve more, but they also need to spend more capital, so that doesn't necessarily make the situation any better.

shanks2020 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   AndrewN  @e-gmat

I 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?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

The conclusion is that statement which acts as a final decision arrived at based on a set of standalone statements of fact, or, premises.

In the above question, there is one fundamental fact that we begin with - "large companies do everything on a more massive scale". Let's call this A. This is not based on any other fact but acts as a standalone claim.

From A, we derive the next statement, the one that you have taken to be the final conclusion - "they must alter more complex operations and spend much more money to meet governmental requirements". Let's call this B.

It is true that B is a form of conclusion - we could call it an intermediate conclusion - because it is  based on  another standalone point. However, it is not the final conclusion because this is not the point that the passage is making. Also, another statement is based on B, which is the first line - "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 this is based on both A and B, and also the ultimate point that the stimulus is driving at, this has to be the final conclusion.

Hope this helps.

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards