Bunuel
There are actually long-term benefits for Wall Street stockbrokers in a rapidly falling stock market in which most investors are selling and many people are losing a great deal of money. After all, the volume of daily transactions rises dramatically in such a market, and the stockbrokers, who receive a commission on each sale, collect a windfall of commission income.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument made above?
A. Some investors whose stocks are affected in a falling market have purchased their stocks on margin—i.e., on credit—and must complete payment at the full purchase price while their stocks are actually declining in value.
B. Many Wall Street stockbrokers sell not only stocks, but also bonds, money-market funds, and insurance-investments that might actually improve in value during a rapidly falling stock market.
C. Only ten percent of stock-buying and selling on Wall Street is conducted on behalf of individual investors; ninety percent is conducted on behalf of institutional investors.
D. After a rapidly falling market, relatively few stockbrokers give up stock-trading and leave Wall Street.
E. After a rapidly falling market, the volume of trading in the stock market generally declines and remains at a low level for an extended period of time.
CR16837
The most important part of a weaken question is this - identify the conclusion.
If this is done correctly, half your problem is already over.
Premise:The volume of daily transactions rises dramatically in rapidly falling market, and the stockbrokers, who receive a commission on each sale, collect a windfall of commission income.
Conclusion: There are actually long-term benefits for Wall Street stockbrokers in a rapidly falling stock market in which most investors are selling and many people are losing a great deal of money.
We have to find the option that weakens this conclusion.
A. Some investors whose stocks are affected in a falling market have purchased their stocks on margin—i.e., on credit—and must complete payment at the full purchase price while their stocks are actually declining in value.Irrelevant. Do stockbrokers have long term benefits in a rapidly falling stock market is the point of contention. Investors plight is irrelevant in this argument.
B. Many Wall Street stockbrokers sell not only stocks, but also bonds, money-market funds, and insurance-investments that might actually improve in value during a rapidly falling stock market.If stockbrokers sell bonds, money-market funds, and insurance-investments that improve in value at this time, then possibly people are buying those. In that case too, there is a sale taking place and the stockbroker gets paid for each sale - buy or sell.
So it strengthens our conclusion.
C. Only ten percent of stock-buying and selling on Wall Street is conducted on behalf of individual investors; ninety percent is conducted on behalf of institutional investors.Doesn't matter whose stocks are getting sold - individuals or intitutional. We are given that stockbrokers receive a commission on each sale so they will received on the sale of the stocks of institutional investors too.
D. After a rapidly falling market, relatively few stockbrokers give up stock-trading and leave Wall Street.Irrelevant. We are concerned about those who stick around. We are looking for "long term benefits" for them.
E. After a rapidly falling market, the volume of trading in the stock market generally declines and remains at a low level for an extended period of time.This weakens our argument. This indicates that the stockbrokers do not get "long term benefits". Rapidly falling stock market may give them an immediate windfall but not long term benefits. In the long term, trading declines and remains low for a long time.
Answer (E)Check weaken questions here:
https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k