V07-14

Question

Editorial: The regulations recently imposed by the government of Sri Lanka mandate unprecedented reductions in the levels of pollutants that manufacturers are permitted to release into the environment. Compliance with these regulations will require the installation of costly new pollution control equipment, which will also necessitate expensive ongoing maintenance. As a result, the prices of Sri Lankan manufactured goods will increase, leading to the loss of some export markets. Therefore, it is evident that the annual export levels of Sri Lankan manufactured goods will decline in the future.
 
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the editorial?

A. The need to comply with the new regulations will stimulate the development within Sri Lanka of new pollution control equipment for which a strong worldwide demand is likely to emerge. 
B. The proposed regulations include a schedule of fines for noncompliance that escalate steeply in cases of repeated noncompliance. 
C. Savings from utilizing the chemicals captured by the pollution control equipment will remain far below the cost of maintaining the equipment. 
D. By international standards, the levels of pollutants currently emitted by some of Sri Lanka's manufacturing plants are not considered excessive. 
E. The stockholders of most of Sri Lanka's manufacturing corporations exert substantial pressure on the corporations to comply with environmental laws.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Editorial: The regulations recently imposed by the government of Sri Lanka mandate unprecedented reductions in the levels of pollutants that manufacturers are permitted to release into the environment. Compliance with these regulations will require the installation of costly new pollution control equipment, which will also necessitate expensive ongoing maintenance. As a result, the prices of Sri Lankan manufactured goods will increase, leading to the loss of some export markets. Therefore, it is evident that the annual export levels of Sri Lankan manufactured goods will decline in the future.
 
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the editorial?

A. The need to comply with the new regulations will stimulate the development within Sri Lanka of new pollution control equipment for which a strong worldwide demand is likely to emerge. 
B. The proposed regulations include a schedule of fines for noncompliance that escalate steeply in cases of repeated noncompliance. 
C. Savings from utilizing the chemicals captured by the pollution control equipment will remain far below the cost of maintaining the equipment. 
D. By international standards, the levels of pollutants currently emitted by some of Sri Lanka's manufacturing plants are not considered excessive. 
E. The stockholders of most of Sri Lanka's manufacturing corporations exert substantial pressure on the corporations to comply with environmental laws.

The passage goes from  'the loss of some export markets'  to  'annual exports of ... goods will ... diminish'  
 
That's a logical leap. in particular, the hidden assumption is that no other export markets will step up to take the place of the ones that will be lost. if we can find an answer choice that contradicts this assumption, we can weaken the argument. 
 
A. Correct Answer. Choice A does just that: it says that the new pollution-control equipment will create a new market, which will then offset the loss of the old markets. (the words 'strong worldwide demand' create a reasonable deduction that the offset will be significant enough to help make up the losses.) 
 
B. Incorrect. This answer choice is irrelevant for the argument as it talks about the specifics of regulation enforcement that is not addressing any export-based situations. Eliminate. 
 
C. Incorrect. This detail strengthens the argument and thus has the opposite effect. Eliminate. 
 
D. Incorrect. This answer choice is not relevant to the export implications. The mandate for reduction of pollutants is in effect. And even if pollution is not excessive, the mandate is still present and costs will still be present. Perhaps if the pollutants currently emitted are low, there is a way to save money on the pollution control equipment, and not drive up the prices as much for exports, but we are not told anything about that opportunity. Thus, we can't really do much with this answer choice. Eliminate. 
 
E. Incorrect. This answer choice strengthens the argument, and thus has the opposite effect. If stockholders will enforce the mandate and put pressure, then there is no way around the costly upgrades. Eliminate.

Answer: A

anish823 · Answer

Why not C)

bb · Answer

Because C does not talk at all about exports diminishing but instead about costs/benefits of the new equipment. To weaken the argument, you have to disprove the unstated assumption that goods previously exported were manufactured using polluting equipment and will remain to be the goods that will continue to be exported now at diminished rates due to increased cost.

attish · Answer

can D be a contender ?cuz its saying that the many Sri Lankan companies emit less pollution compared to international standards and hence the law wont apply to them

Suhaas20 · Answer

In case of D, i believe the law would still apply to them. The production of any good in state or country would be regulated by internal regulations. So even if sri lankan companies emit less than international standards, it does not absolve them of following the norms laid out within Sri Lanka, which is where their production would actually be taking place.

Disha067 · Answer

Why can E not be the asnwer?

Posted from my mobile device

bb · Answer

How do you feel E helps with weakening of the assumption that the exports will go down as the result of increased costs from the increase in regulations.

E does not address any of these and seems out of scope. It seems it would actually strengthen the argument.

bb · Answer

Thank you. The explanation for this question has been improved.

cosmiclatte · Answer

Although I felt like option A would have been the best answer logically, I ultimately eliminated it because within the option it said, "for which a strong worldwide demand is likely to emerge." The word "likely" threw me off because, throughout my GMAT studies, I have learned that words such as likely do not imply certainty/causality. Therefore, in this case, although regulations will stimulate the development within Sri Lanka of new pollution control equipment, there is no guarantee that a demand will occur meaning that there might be a ton of control equipment developed but that there is no worldwide market for them, simply because of the word "likely" leading me to conclude that option A might be a trap answer. I realize that I overcomplicated it, but are there any tips or approaches to ensure I don't fall into a trap I set for myself by overcomplicating an option and/or ways to identify when words such as "likely" do not negate an option choice?

I appreciate any helpful input.

I appreciate any helpful input.

bb · Answer

Thank you for the feedback and outlining your thought process. So I would say you have a good instinct but there are different application standards based on the type of a question that is required: Best effort Questions. (Examples: which of the following provides the best explanation, most seriously weakens, which is this question, or could explain) - these require you to disprove something that is stated with absolute certainty. As the result, they have a lower standards for proof. It is best effort type of thing, so a possible outcome or a likely outcome is good enough to cast a doubt. Absolute Requirement Questions . (Examples: Must be true questions, Except, and a few others). So in some cases, we just need a reasonable explanation (e.g. best that works most of the time) and in others we need an absolute one that absolutely always works. In this case, we just need to create a crack in the argument to show weakness - we just have to injure it, not kill it. Casting a doubt where something may happen is a sufficient standard. The argument says - this outcome is guaranteed, and if we show a bit of weakness, that's sufficient to deny it's absolute claim. I hope it helps 😇 P.S. There is one question on the GMAT that also uses likely (though in a slightly different place - this is a question hated by many) https://gmatclub.com/forum/lyme-disease ... 85401.html

V07-14

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