The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal government

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.

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

" 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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Conclusion: Regulations imposed by government impact big businesses than small businesses.
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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Hello,

Please help to clear my confusion!!!!

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

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.