Cattle Rancher: The new government regulations : Critical Reasoning

Question

Cattle rancher: The new government regulations requiring the testing of all cattle crossing state borders would cost cattle ranchers $1 billion annually. These regulations would damage the nation's economy.
Health regulator: Some of the $1 billion spent or lost by ranchers will be revenue for other businesses. Profits will be gained as well as lost.

The health regulator responds to the cattle rancher by

A) demonstrating that the rancher's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand

B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for the rancher's argument.

C) suggesting that the rancher's argument overlooks a mitigating consequence

D) reinforcing the rancher's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence the rancher cites

E) agreeing with the main conclusion of the rancher's argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism

himanshumalhotra1990 · Answer

Can someone please explain what is the issue with option 'B'?

goforgmat · Answer

Option B : challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for the rancher's argument.
It isn't challenging the plausibility of evidence .When you say challenging the evidence that means you present a counter evidence for the evidence originally provided.
The health regulator isn't doing that. He is merely stating a consequence that has been overlooked by the cattle rancher.

SVP482 · Answer

C and E are the only two options which come close to the health regulator refuting the argument. However, choose E.

arpanghosh · Answer

I felt that E answers the question with more specificity than C. The Health Regulator is agreeing with the conclusion and then saying that one loss would also lead to growth in another business which is an optimistic point of view as opposed to 'damage nation's economy' which is a pessimistic one. I narrowed down to C and E but chose E because I felt it explained the Health regulator's position with more clarity. Where did I go wrong?

Hero8888 · Answer

Rancher's conclusion:   ... would damage the nation's economy. - will impact
 Health regulator's conclusion:  Profits will be gained as well as lost. - no impact

In case of (E) "agreeing with the main conclusion" - is clearly wrong. I think your main issue is finding conclusion in the argument. Work on it.

Gemelo90 · Answer

E agrees with the main conclusion that ranchers lose $1 bn, but there is not a real reason for optimism. Therefore C.

Hero8888 · Answer

Hi, It seems you have issues with finding conclusions too.

To check what is the main conclusion of two simingly conclusions X and Y, you have to ask X because of Y, or Y because ox X. The part that is logically lays before "because of" is a real conclusion. Try to compare: these regulations would damage the nation's economy because ranchers will loose $1 billion annually ranchers will loose $1 billion annually because these regulations would damage the nation's economy Clearly "these regulations would damage the nation's economy" is a main conclusion.

Gemelo90 · Answer

I disagree. For the cattle rancher not the damage to the nation's economy is the main conclusion, but the damage to his specific industry. Just think about yourself as the cattle rancher. Clearly, you care more about your own existence than potential implications to the overall GDP.

Hero8888 · Answer

As a cattle rancher I will try to convince that my own problems are not only mine, but the whole nation's. And I will argue that doing bad to me will lead to the problems of others. Health regulator has answered " No, your problem is your problem, because 1 bln that you will lose will be compensated in other industries. So we just take it from one pocket and remove it to another".

The fact is undoubtful, but the main conclusion was rejected.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Yes, the rancher's conclusion is definitely that the regulations would damage the nation's economy. We don't identify the conclusion by examining what would be most important to the author. We have to look at structure. The rancher is using the established premise that the regulations would cost $1 billion to make a larger point. Sure, this person may be saying this out of selfishness, but that doesn't change the logical structure.

Since the rancher's conclusion is about the economy, we know that the regulator's response denies the rancher's conclusion. That rules out D and E. A and B might be great ways to proceed, but the regulator doesn't say anything to indicate that the rancher's evidence is incorrect or irrelevant. Rather, the regulator points out that the rancher is leaving something out: the $1 billion won't simply be burned up! It will go to other businesses, so it won't represent a net loss of $1 billion for the country. That kind of counterbalance is precisely what a "mitigating consequence" is.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Reading the question: we get our task from the question stem. How does the health regulator respond to the cattle rancher? We note the answer choices: we're asked for the logical form of what the regulator is saying, not his actual point.

Creating a filter: The cattle rancher's point can be summed up with the words, "1 billion dollars." The regulator doesn't argue with 1 billion dollars; he redefines it; it's not all loss. We will paraphrase this as "redefine" and go to the answer choices looking for something like this.

Applying the filter: Scanning the beginning of the choices, we can eliminate based on some verbs. The regulator's not agreeing with the rancher, so (D) and (E) are out. He's not subtracting evidence from the situation, so (A) and (B) are out. He's adding information to the situation, through his redefinition.

The correct answer is (C).

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.

Cattle Rancher: The new government regulations : Critical Reasoning

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

Cattle Rancher: The new government regulations : Critical Reasoning

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