HOT Competition 27 Aug/8AM: The Mayor of Hortwitz, an economy mostly

First Rule of CR is to understand the question statement clearly.

Here we need to findvthe option that indicate the success of plan. Plan is to make SEZ more viable place to do business.

Remember, it's not asking any assumption, inference etc. It is just asking for some sort of proof that SEZ are viable in doing business.

This proof is clearly given by Option C by showing that creation of SEZ led to increase in contribution to Government. Now contribution increase means that SEZ doing good. Hence success of plan.

Correct Option C.

Posted from my mobile device

A. Tax benefits, special rates of interest and other financial subsidies have in the past helped many economies similar to Hortwitz grow.
Out of scope

B. In Greenwitz, Hortwitz’s twin city, post the creation of SEZs, the economy grew by an unprecedented 6% when measures were taken to encourage investments in businesses.
Ambiguous. Which business? Big or small? Incorrect

C. In Hortwitz, although the few existing small and medium scale industries did not register growth, the creation of SEZs led to a significant increase in the contribution made to the economy by small and medium scale businesses
Correct. It means more sme were established and contributed

D. Most of the SEZs were planned in remote areas where the costs of transportation and labour were very high.
Out of scope

E. Many investors are reluctant to invest in small and medium scale businesses as the return on investments are often low and risks comparatively high.
Out of scope

Posted from my mobile device

Howdy Partners!

Question and explanation below. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

----------------------------------------
The Mayor of Hortwitz, an economy mostly supported by large scale businesses, planned to create Special Economic Zones(SEZ) which would attract small and medium sized businesses to set up their establishments but would not have much to offer largescale business. The idea was to attract more investors to SEZs by making the SEZs a more financially viable place to set up businesses in.

Which of the following would, if true, most strongly indicate that the plan was successful in achieving its goal? Identify question -- this is a sneaky strengthen question. What result would strengthen the conclusion, meaning that the proposed plan was successful?


A. Tax benefits, special rates of interest and other financial subsidies have in the past helped many economies similar to Hortwitz grow. Out of scope -- while these may be part of SEZ's, the argument does not mention any of these. Eliminate A.

B. In Greenwitz, Hortwitz’s twin city, post the creation of SEZs, the economy grew by an unprecedented 6% when measures were taken to encourage investments in businesses. You may be tempted to say that a similar city implemented the same plan, and was successful -- so this strengthens, right? WRONG! Be sure to read the statement carefully -- statement states that the ECONOMY grew. The plan is to attract more investors by making it more financially viable to set up businesses, i.e., create businesses. Does not state whether more investors were attracted or whether more businesses were set up. Eliminate B

C. In Hortwitz, although the few existing small and medium scale industries did not register growth, the creation of SEZs led to a significant increase in the contribution made to the economy by small and medium scale businesses While the existing small and medium scale industries did not growth (pay attention to industries vs businesses), there was an increase in contribution to the economy by small and medium scale businesses. Therefore, more businesses were created (i.e., more investors), as was the intent of the plan from NEW industries of small and medium size businesses. This is a tricky answer -- and the best answer out of the rest if you were unsure whether this answer was correct. Remember, goal is to eliminate definitely WRONG answers. If we are left with an answer after that, then we choose that answer."

D. Most of the SEZs were planned in remote areas where the costs of transportation and labour were very high. Out of scope. Eliminate D.

E. Many investors are reluctant to invest in small and medium scale businesses as the return on investments are often low and risks comparatively high. While the above could have resulted in lower risk and higher return, the argument does not state that this was in fact the result. How does this ensure that the plan was successful in achieving its goal? Even though the projected, returns could have been insanely high, maybe no one even invested. So this does not satisfy the question and we can Eliminate E.

Answer C is our answer.

Argument: mayor plans to create SEZ in order to attract small and medium businesses.
Such small and medium firms must not compete with large scale businesses, as states the stem.

Target: to attract more investors who set up businesses under financially viable conditions.
The overall aim is TO ATTRACT INVESTORS.

We need a choice that supports the idea of the mayor.
That choice should demonstrate that the plan indeed ATTRACTED investors and their investments.
With this in mind let’s analyze the choices:

A. Tax benefits, special rates of interest and other financial subsidies have in the past helped many economies similar to Hortwitz grow.

A common trap answer: the logic behind is that A succeeded, so B also should succeed. The fact that other similar economies were helped by a akin plan doesn’t necessarily mean that this plan will work for other economies too. It sounds as if someone claims: high gmat score helped X, Y, Z to get admitted to a business school, so N with high score will get admitted too.
Moreover, “helped” is broad term and it doesn’t necessarily mean “to attract investors, investments”.


B. In Greenwitz, Hortwitz’s twin city, post the creation of SEZs, the economy grew by an unprecedented 6% when measures were taken to encourage investments in businesses.

The very same logic that uses A. even though twin cities, they may have different policy, legal basis, and terms for businesses. Without the additional information we cannot say that the plan will succeed. “the economy grew” and “encourage investments” don’t necessarily mean that the economy grew because of “attracted investments”.


C. In Hortwitz, although the few existing small and medium scale industries did not register growth, the creation of SEZs led to a significant increase in the contribution made to the economy by small and medium scale businesses

Seems to be correct. “the few existing” means all of the existing small and medium businesses in the area. The choice says that such businesses made significant contribution to the economy. Most probably such contribution implies that such business made investments in setting up firms, creating jobs, binging new technology, and create work places. All of this indicates an investment made by investors.
“did not register growth” doesn’t mean that the number of businesses increased, but their scale did not increase. And that’s what we want because as mayor plans small businesses MUST NOT compete with large scale ones, by rising into a large scale.
As mayor plans small plans should remain small, must create competition, but bring investment. That’s what this choice says.


D. Most of the SEZs were planned in remote areas where the costs of transportation and labour were very high.

This choice weakens rather than supports the plan. If choice D is true, the small business holders will not be interested in investing to set up business in such SEZ. So, choice is out.


E. Many investors are reluctant to invest in small and medium scale businesses as the return on investments are often low and risks comparatively high.

Once again this choice weakens rather than supports the plan. Let it be true, small business holder do not invest in small businesses.
This choice is also too broad too tackle mayors plan, because it states an overall tendency. So, it is out.



Hence C

Posted from my mobile device

Stimulus: The mayor states that SEZs would benefit the town of Hortwitz by making the SEZs financially attractive for investors. The SEZs would attract mainly small and medium sized businesses, but not larger ones.

What event(s) would make it more likely that the plan was successful in the achieving its goal? If the SEZs made it possible for the small and medium sized businesses to contribute to the town's economy, then investors would have found it attractive to invest in these businesses.

Let's examine the choices.

A. Tax benefits, special rates of interest and other financial subsidies have in the past helped many economies similar to Hortwitz grow.

This statement points to other similar economies that grew because of different benefits such as tax benefits, special interest rates and financial subsidies. But pointing to other economies, no matter how similar they may be, provides no hints about how the economy of the town would be helped by small and medium sized businesses.

B. In Greenwitz, Hortwitz’s twin city, post the creation of SEZs, the economy grew by an unprecedented 6% when measures were taken to encourage investments in businesses.

Pointing to a positive result that occurred to a similar town in the past provides no hints about how the economy of the town of Hortwitz would be helped by small and medium sized businesses. Perhaps the twin city of Greenwitz was the recepient of an exceptionally lucky set of circumstances that cannot be expected to occur again.

C. In Hortwitz, although the few existing small and medium scale industries did not register growth, the creation of SEZs led to a significant increase in the contribution made to the economy by small and medium scale businesses

This statement correctly states that the SEZs helped small and medium sized businesses to contribute to the town's economy.

D. Most of the SEZs were planned in remote areas where the costs of transportation and labour were very high.

This possibility actually weakens the support for SEZs. If SEZs are located in remote areas that increase the costs of doing business, then that would result in fewer small and medium sized businesses contributing to the economy.

E. Many investors are reluctant to invest in small and medium scale businesses as the return on investments are often low and risks comparatively high.

This possibility actually weakens the support for SEZs. If SEZs primarily benefit small and medium sized businesses, then investors would be reluctant to invest in these businesses because of perceived risks of investment, regardless of whether these businesses contribute to the economy.

Strength Question.

Premise:
1. The Mayor of Hortwitz, an economy mostly supported by large scale businesses, planned to create Special Economic Zones(SEZ)
2. SEZ would attract small and medium sized businesses to set up their establishments but would not have much to offer largescale business.
3. The idea was to attract more investors to SEZs by making the SEZs a more financially viable place to set up businesses in.

Conclusion:
the plan was successful in achieving its goal.

Pre-thinking:
1. SEZ supports small and medium sized businesses to increase the opportunity of successful business.

Analysis of the choices.

The other beneficial finance factors do not help to strengthen the conclusion. Out.


The situation in Greenwitz is unlikely to happen in Hortwitz's even though there is twin city. I think it's non-sense. Out.


The creation of SEZ supports the economy of small and medium businesses. That is my pre-thinking. Keep it.


This absolutely is out of scope. Out.


This weakens the conclusion. Out.

So I choose C.

Posted from my mobile device

The Mayor of Hortwitz, an economy mostly supported by large scale businesses, planned to create Special Economic Zones(SEZ) which would attract small and medium sized businesses to set up their establishments but would not have much to offer largescale business. The idea was to attract more investors to SEZs by making the SEZs a more financially viable place to set up businesses in.

The Mayor of Hortwitz’ plan is that the mayor wants to attract more investors to SEZs by making the SEZs a more financially viable place to set up businesses in and he focus on small and medium sized businesses.


Which of the following would, if true, most strongly indicate that the plan was successful in achieving its goal?

I use Eliminating choice to answer this one.

A. Tax benefits, special rates of interest and other financial subsidies have in the past helped many economies similar to Hortwitz grow. --> IRRELEVANT. Tax benefits in the past is nothing to do with the plan in the future.

B. In Greenwitz, Hortwitz’s twin city, post the creation of SEZs, the economy grew by an unprecedented 6% when measures were taken to encourage investments in businesses. --> OUT OF SCOPE. A Hortwitz’s twin city, Greenwitz, is out of scope of The Mayor of Hortwitz’ plan.

C. In Hortwitz, although the few existing small and medium scale industries did not register growth, the creation of SEZs led to a significant increase in the contribution made to the economy by small and medium scale businesses

D. Most of the SEZs were planned in remote areas where the costs of transportation and labour were very high. --> OUT OF SCOPE. The Mayor of Hortwitz’ plan focus on small and medium sized businesses, not specific in metropolis or remote areas.

E. Many investors are reluctant to invest in small and medium scale businesses as the return on investments are often low and risks comparatively high. --> This choice is actually WEAKEN the plan.

Posted from my mobile device

Hortwitz, an economy mostly supported by large scale businesses, planned to create Special Economic Zones(SEZ) which would attract small and medium-sized businesses to set up their establishments.

The idea was to attract more investors to SEZs by making the SEZs a more financially viable place to set up businesses in

Lets analyse Options :-

Option A :- Incorrect

Tax benefits, special rates of interest and other financial subsidies have in the past helped many economies similar to Hortwitz grow

These points are irrelevant with respect to Goal i.e. attracting investors or economic benefit.

Option B:- Incorrect

In Greenwitz, Hortwitz’s twin city, post the creation of SEZs, the economy grew by an unprecedented 6% when measures were taken to encourage investments in businesses.

We are not concerned about the economy of Twin City as there can be many more conditions which are unknown.

Option C :- Correct

In Hortwitz, although the few existing small and medium scale industries did not register growth, the creation of SEZs led to a significant increase in the contribution made to the economy by small and medium scale businesses

Clearly, this argument Clearly indicates growth in the economy, supports the initiative.

Option D:- Incorrect

Most of the SEZs were planned in remote areas where the costs of transportation and labour were very high

The negative argument for SEZs, while result on Goal is unknown

Option E :- Incorrect

Many investors are reluctant to invest in small and medium scale businesses as the return on investments are often low and risks comparatively high.

The negative argument, Stress on unsuccessful of SEZs.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.