Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiativ

Question

Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiative that initially was promised government funding has since seen that funding severely curtailed. In no such case has the government come even close to providing the level of funds initially earmarked for these projects. Since large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative-energy projects, it is likely that the corporations’ actions influenced the government’s funding decisions.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the reasoning above?

(A) For the past two decades, most alternative-energy initiatives have received little or no government funding.
(B) The funding initially earmarked for a government project is always subject to change, given the mechanisms by which the political process operates.
(C) The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.
(D) Some projects encouraged by large corporations have seen their funding severely curtailed over the last five years.
(E) All large corporations have made it a point to discourage some forms of research.

Source: LSAT

Arro44 · Answer

I know this is not SC, but for some reason the language in this sentence seems very off to me

(C) The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.

Is there something wrong, or is it just my subpar English. Someone please enlighten me.

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

It does  seem  confusing, but it's actually fine. An equivalent phrasing would be: "those research projects which large corporations have made it a point to discourage are the ones whose government funding has been severely curtailed

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

The answer is C.

The argument is that corporations are behind the cut in funding. Logically, this would be strengthened by evidence that when corporations aren't involved, no cut occurs.  This is exactly what (C) tells us:  only  when corporations are involved, does this happen .

Why are the rest wrong?
(A) For the past two decades, most alternative-energy initiatives have received little or no government funding.  we already knew this, and it doesn't relate to the heart of the argument - whether this is caused by corporations or not 
(B) The funding initially earmarked for a government project is always subject to change, given the mechanisms by which the political process operates.  this doesn't add much, and if anything it weakens the claim that corporations are the cause  
(D) Some projects encouraged by large corporations have seen their funding severely curtailed over the last five years.  significantly weakens the claim - it shows corporations do not get their way in funding  
(E) All large corporations have made it a point to discourage some forms of research.  too general - we don't care about all corporations, and the fact that they "have made a point" of something doesn't mean they succeed

unraveled · Answer

Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiative that initially was promised government funding has since seen that funding severely curtailed. In no such case has the government come even close to providing the level of funds initially earmarked for these projects.  Since large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative-energy projects, it is likely that the corporations’ actions influenced the government’s funding decisions.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the reasoning above?

(A) For the past two decades, most alternative-energy initiatives have received little or no government funding. - WRONG. Nothing as such signified here as should have been according to the highlighted text.
(B) The funding initially earmarked for a government project is always subject to change, given the mechanisms by which the political process operates. - WRONG. Irrelevant but weakens also.
(C) The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage. - CORRECT. Straightforward.
(D) Some projects encouraged by large corporations have seen their funding severely curtailed over the last five years. - WRONG. Goes in either direction.
(E) All large corporations have made it a point to discourage some forms of research. - WRONG. Thus any curtailment in govt funding is normal. Weakens.

Answer C.

AVARGUR · Answer

The stem states that "  every   new major alternative-energy initiative that initially was promised government funding has since seen that funding severely curtailed ", with respect to option C, which states "The  only  research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage." does this really strengthen the reasoning?

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.

Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiativ

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

Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiativ

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