In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recentl

Question

In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recently enacted legislation that reduces taxes on small businesses. This enormous piece of legislation contains many other components that are also advantageous to small businesses: loan support, more advice and assistance from the SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration), as well as favorable lease terms on federal property. Clearly, the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the argument above?

A. In this same legislation, the reduction in taxes for larger corporations is substantially greater than for small businesses and the larger corporations receive even more additional incentives than small businesses.

B. Some of the biggest problems facing small businesses—health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance—are not addressed in the legislation.

C. The tax reductions are only valid for 3 years, and most of the companies that can be profitable with this new tax structure would fail under the current structure.

D. There are very few government properties that are available for lease by small businesses.

E. Advice and assistance from the SBA is rarely helpful for small businesses.

akshayk · Accepted Answer

Argument 
To stimulate job growth, legislators have a new bill that reduces taxes on SMBs. Legislation has many other components beneficial to SMBs.
 Conclusion  - New legislation is in the long term interest of SMBs

A - Irrelevant. OUT.
B - Trick Option. Address the first part of the argument i.e. legislation introduced to stimulate job growth, but fails the address the other aspects of the argument. Keep for now.
C - This statement means these SMBs will flourish for 3 years, and then flounder once the tax reforms are removed. Looks promising and attacks the conclusion i.e. the legislation was for long term interest of SMBs. KEEP.
D - OUT.
E - OUT.

B/w B & C.
C wins as it directly attacks the conclusion, i.e. if these tax reforms are only good for 3 years, then these SMBs will only flourish for 3 years. When these companies fail, so will the job growth.

C is the answer.

jinxd123 · Answer

In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recently enacted legislation that reduces taxes on small businesses. This enormous piece of legislation contains many other components that are also advantageous to small businesses: loan support, more advice and assistance from the SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration), as well as favorable lease terms on federal property. Clearly, the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the argument above?

B. Some of the biggest problems facing small businesses—health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance—are not addressed in the legislation.
C. The tax reductions are only valid for 3 years, and most of the companies that can be profitable with this new tax structure would fail under the current structure.
D. There are very few government properties that are available for lease by small businesses.
E. Advice and assistance from the SBA is rarely helpful for small businesses.

1. Argument question : Weakener
Conclusion :- the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners. why? because it reduces taxes on small businesses / provides loan support+ assistance+ advice.
Pre-thinking:

If anything that can prove that these are short-term measure, and in long term companies need something else.
or
if we can prove that these measures are taken not because of small business, but some other ulterior motive is there.

A. In this same legislation, the reduction in taxes for larger corporations is substantially greater than for small businesses and the larger corporations receive even more additional incentives than small businesses. : Even if large corp. get more tax benefits, it doesn't automatically translate into the fact that the new legislation is not in the long-term interest of small business owners. May be large corp. get more tax benefit but they have to pay something else in return.

For example :-

I help all my students who failed last time.
if I help more students who are top-scorer. It doesn't mean that my teaching plan is not in favour of students who failed last time.

C. The tax reductions are only valid for 3 years, and most of the companies that can be profitable with this new tax structure would fail under the current structure. :- It means that companies needed something else for long-term interest, hence it weakens the argument.

SO C.

bkpolymers1617 · Answer

mikemcgarry : Hey Mike- Really sorry to bother you with a this today. I really could n't hold myself, and thought I should reach out to you once for some clarifications. Hoping that you would be able to help as always.

In this question, I marked the choice B as my answer. Now, I do have a fair idea why option C is correct. It states that the tax system is only applicable for 3 years , and after that it will return back to its normal structure, and not many companies will be able to survive then, OK- I get what the writers of the answer are pointing at. But I have something in my mind, which, I can not digest. Suppose I go to a doctor today, and tell him that I am having high fever. And the doctor gives me a medicine for Cold. Don't you think in that case Doctor is really stupid and is not concerned about my health. I presented this analogy because option B is very similar. If the small business are suffering from some major problems, and the government comes out with some initiatives, which don t really take care of their current needs- then can we really say that the government is concerned about their long term interest? This made me mark Option B.

Now, looking at Option C- its ok that this plan is only applicable for 3 years, but what if in the mean time government comes up with some other development plans in 2 years from now. It is at least doing the right thing at the present by doing something at least. Plus, it is also fair to assume that the business might fail right now in this current structure, but with some support for 3 years, they might be able to build some solid business foundations, and might be able to support themselves when such a structure comes into play again.

Do you think, my arguments are too overstretched or do they have some credence? Please let me know your thoughts here. Thanks so much.

gmatexam439 · Answer

In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recently enacted legislation that reduces taxes on small businesses. This enormous piece of legislation contains many other components that are also advantageous to small businesses: loan support, more advice and assistance from the SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration), as well as favorable lease terms on federal property. Clearly, the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the argument above?

A. In this same legislation, the reduction in taxes for larger corporations is substantially greater than for small businesses and the larger corporations receive even more additional incentives than small businesses. - Okay, let there be greater benefits for large corporations, but the argument at hand talks about small corporations. 
B. Some of the biggest problems facing small businesses – health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance – are not addressed in the legislation. - There might many things that the proposed legislation might have included and not included, but the option certainly doesn't tell us as to why the SBO will be hurt because of the legislation. This is a simple fact set. 
C. The tax reductions are only valid for 3 years, and most of the companies that can be profitable with this new tax structure would fail under the current structure. - Correct. As per the premise, there is an URGENT NEED for growth simulation. This option says that the companies will be benefited after 3 years. 
D. There are very few government properties that are available for lease by small businesses. - Out of scope. 
E. Advice and assistance from the SBA is rarely helpful for small businesses. - Out of scope.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear bkpolymers1617 , My friend, I'm happy to respond.

I certainly agree that both (A) and (B) are tempting traps, but even with that, I would say that (C) is a clear answer. This is a fantastic CR practice question! Another good one from Veritas!

First of all, here's the conclusion: Clearly, the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners. We want to know, which answer univocally weakens this conclusion? Now, here's (B): Some of the biggest problems facing small businesses—health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance—are not addressed in the legislation. OK, certainly, this indicates that the legislation is less than ideal, but does it completely undercut the argument? Let's return to your doctor analogy. If I have a broken leg, and the doctor gives me cough syrup, that doesn't help at all—it's completely useless. By contrast, it has been the case in my real life, on a couple occasions, that I had a viral infection, but the doctor gave me antibiotics to knock out a secondary bacterial infection, and indeed, when the bacteria were gone, along with the extra strain they were placing on my immune system, my system was able to rally on its own and knock out the virus and I got better. In other words, sometimes help or support of completely different kind is enough to solve a main problem. For example, as you point out, it could be the case that, even with this new legislation, the small businesses will still be going under because " health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance " are too much for them. The main problem, unaddressed in the new legislation, drags these businesses down. That could be true. That would undercut the argument. Or, it could be true that, with this new legislation, that small businesses will thrive and begin raking in big bucks, more each year, so that they they easily cover the " health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance " and still have a ton of profit left over. With enough money, no fee is really a problem. This also could be true, and this would support the argument. Which one of those two scenarios would play out? We don't know. Right there, because we don't know whether this could be a weakener or a strengthener, choice (B) can't be the answer. You see, you did half the job. You imagined how (B) could be a weakener. The other half is to imagine how it could be a strengthener. A trap answer often will have enough wiggle room such that it could be interpreted either way, and if the choice can go either way, it cannot serve as a clean and clear answer to the question. By contrast, choice (C) is devastating weakener. I can't think of any way to spin that so that it would be the least bit positive. That's what distinguishes the OA (C) from the incorrect choices. Does all this make sense? Mike

abrakadabra21 · Answer

In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recently enacted legislation that reduces taxes on small businesses. This enormous piece of legislation contains many other components that are also advantageous to small businesses: loan support, more advice and assistance from the SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration), as well as favorable lease terms on federal property. Clearly, the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the argument above?

B. Some of the biggest problems facing small businesses—health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance—are not addressed in the legislation.
C. The tax reductions are only valid for 3 years, and most of the companies that can be profitable with this new tax structure would fail under the current structure.
D. There are very few government properties that are available for lease by small businesses.
E. Advice and assistance from the SBA is rarely helpful for small businesses.

1. Argument question : Weakener
Conclusion :- the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners. why? because it reduces taxes on small businesses / provides loan support+ assistance+ advice. 
Pre-thinking:

If anything that can prove that these are short-term measure, and in long term companies need something else. 
or 
if we can prove that these measures are taken not because of small business, but some other ulterior motive is there.

A. In this same legislation, the reduction in taxes for larger corporations is substantially greater than for small businesses and the larger corporations receive even more additional incentives than small businesses. : Even if large corp. get more tax benefits, it doesn't automatically translate into the fact that the new legislation is not in the long-term interest of small business owners. May be large corp. get more tax benefit but they have to pay something else in return.

For example :-

I help all my students who failed last time. 
if I help more students who are top-scorer. It doesn't mean that my teaching plan is not in favour of students who failed last time.

C. The tax reductions are only valid for 3 years, and most of the companies that can be profitable with this new tax structure would fail under the current structure. :- It means that companies needed something else for long-term interest, hence it weakens the argument.

SO C.

rahulbanerjee1992 · Answer

Clearly, the new legislation is in the  long-term  interest of small business owners.
 long-term  is the keyword here, we need to find out an option where  long-term  plan is failing. Option is clearly C.

chesstitans · Answer

A common pattern; the key word is "long-term"
A does not tell whether the plan will work, same to D and B discusses about sth else.
E actually strengthens.
C is obviously correct.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

In any "best completes the passage" question, you should read the portion immediately before the underline so that you can determine what role the answer choice needs to play. Here that portion is "the new legislation appears not to be in the long-term interest of small business owners because" so you're looking to weaken the idea that the legislation is in that long-term interest of small business owners.

In answer choice (A) it might seem that if the legislation is more favorable for large businesses, then somehow it is bad for small businesses. However, this is not the case – if the legislation makes conditions more favorable for small businesses then it is clearly in their interest. This answer would be correct if the conclusion concerned the fairness of the legislation with regard to small versus large businesses. (B) is a difficult incorrect answer choice – since the legislation is not affecting many of the biggest problems, it might seem that this would weaken the conclusion. However, as long as the current legislation is doing something positive (lowering taxes and providing other incentives) even though it might not be fixing the biggest problems, it is clearly good for small businesses. This type of answer choice is tricky on weaken questions as it gets you thinking about what might be a better plan but does not specifically weaken the plan that exists in the argument. (C) is correct because, if the tax reduction expires in 3 years and most small businesses would fail without it, then clearly the legislation is not “in the long-term interest of small businesses”. (D) and (E) are incorrect for the same reason – even if you learn that one of the incentives is actually not all that helpful for small businesses, it does not mean that the legislation as a whole is somehow bad for small businesses. Answer is (C).

dcummins · Answer

A is incorrect because the fact that large businesses also benefit does not weaken the claim that the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small businesses.

B is incorrect because a failure to address some of small businesses' biggest problems does not refute/ weaken the claim that the legislation is actually beneficial to small businesses in the long-term.

C is correct because the conclusion is that the legislation is in the long-term interest of small businesses, but C actually tells us that this legislation will lapse in 3 year years time. Long-term is 5+ years.

hientranzx · Answer

In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recently enacted legislation that reduces taxes on small businesses. This enormous piece of legislation contains many other components that are also advantageous to small businesses: loan support, more advice and assistance from the SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration), as well as favorable lease terms on federal property. Clearly, the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners.

reduces taxes on small businesses --> job growth
Conclusion: the new legislation is in the long-term interest of small business owners.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the argument above?  WEAKEN

A. In this same legislation,   the reduction in taxes for larger corporations    is substantially greater than for small businesses and the larger corporations receive even more additional incentives than small businesses.

B. Some of the biggest problems facing small businesses — health care costs and workman’s compensation insurance  —are not addressed in the legislation.

C. The tax reductions are only valid for 3 years, and most of the companies that can be profitable with this new tax structure would fail under the current structure.
This is the right answer. It can be beneficial in 3 years only, not long term

D. There are very   few government   properties that are available for lease by small businesses.

E. Advice and assistance from the SBA is rarely helpful for small businesses.
Contradict

shivambangia · Answer

D and E options give part of the solution and so does C, that is why I chose B as the answer.
isn't tax, land, and SBA all part of the problem that is not getting right? 
why is C different from D and E.
Tax will increase after 3 years -- we don't want that
less land for lease -- we don't want that
SBAs are not helpful -- we don't want that

We don't want either of the options and all give part of the whole legislation then why is C selected. 
Please help

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recentl

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

In order to stimulate job growth immediately, legislators have recentl

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