Equipment used by private biotechnology-research firms becomes obsolet

Question

Equipment used by private biotechnology-research firms becomes obsolete more quickly than any other business equipment, simply because biotechnology advances so rapidly. A proposed tax law would provide significant tax incentives for businesses in every industry to replace their old equipment with new equipment. Obviously, political lobbyists for the biotechnology industry were the instigators of this tax proposal.

Which of the following most supports the claim that biotechnology industry lobbyists are responsible for the tax proposal?

(A) Equipment used in the biotechnology industry loses its value more quickly than equipment used in any other industry.

(B) Biotechnology firms expect biotechnology advances to outpace those in other industries for the foreseeable future.

(C) The legislator introducing the proposed law used to work in the biotechnology industry.

(D) Other industries have not lobbied for the proposed law.

(E) Unless a biotechnology firm replaces its obsolete equipment, it will be driven out of business by competing firms.

ShivamShekhar · Answer

please give the proper rationale behind B being the answer.

RohiniK · Answer

The question is a strengthening question.

Conclusion: political lobbyists for the biotechnology industry were the instigators of this tax proposal.

Premises 
1. the biotechnology advances rapidly 
2. biotechnology equipments become obsolete more quickly than equipments used in other industries. So the biotechnology industry or firms will need money to replace the obsolete equipments. Getting some tax incentives will help the biotech industry to save some money.

Choice (B) supports the conclusion of biotech industry advances rapidly And biotech firm’s interest in utilising saved money (from tax incentives) to replace the old equipments with the new ones.

So, the answer is choice (B)

Posted from my mobile device

IanStewart · Answer

None of the answers even remotely support the claim that "biotech industry lobbyists are responsible for the tax proposal". None of the answers even suggest lobbyists were involved with the legislation. The only answer that's even vaguely relevant is D, since at least that rules out another possibility - that a different industry lobby was responsible. But that wouldn't be a good answer to a question like this, because we still have no reason to think lobbyists had anything to do with it.

D is very clearly a better answer than the "OA" of B, though. B, like a few of the answer choices, effectively just restates a premise of the argument, and you never strengthen arguments by restating premises. If B is "right", then almost every answer is "right" for some reason or other.

fitzpratik · Answer

Hi
Just a small observation, 
other firms not lobbying for proposal doesnot mean biotech firm has lobbied for the proposal

IanStewart · Answer

Yes, exactly - that's why I said D was not a good answer here. It is, however, the only answer that can even be tenuously supported. Real GMAT questions aren't like this one - the right answer to a real GMAT CR problem is always clearly right, once you understand the logic - so there's no reason to worry about this particular problem.

sambitspm · Answer

I did get it wrong. My shortlisted answers were B and C and I chose C.
Now the question asks to prove whether the biotechnology industry lobbyists were responsible, not the presenter.
This was the missing piece between B and C.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello, everyone. First off, I want to say that I agree with what  IanStewart  has written above about the tenuous connection the passage presents regarding the proposed legislation and lobbyists of any sort. If we are to  assume , however, that the claim is valid, since the question itself is asking us to support it, then we can approach the task a little differently and consider which of the five options provides the most logical rationale behind the claim. That is, why  would  the proposed legislation have ties to  biotechnology industry lobbyists  in particular? We need to break down the passage carefully.

Sentence 1 presents an inverted structure in conclusion/premise when we are used to seeing the opposite. Straightened out, we are to gather that   because  biotechnology advances so rapidly , equipment within that industry faces obsolescence faster than that used in other businesses.

Sentence 2 introduces the  tax proposal  from the question, one that would affect equipment replacement costs  in every industry —crucially, not just in biotech.

Sentence 3 states the main conclusion, the one we have to assume is correct to tackle the question:  biotech  lobbyists, as opposed to those from other areas of business, are the driving force behind the proposal.

For the conclusion to be valid, we have to find an answer that provides a reason to single out the biotechnology industry from all the others that  could  have set their own lobbyists to propose the legislation instead. Because of the not-so-firm foundation upon which the question stands, I am going to do things a little differently from my usual presentation. Rather than single out text in the answer choices to color in  red  or  green , I will simply  highlight  some topics that warrant further consideration.

This is, I believe, a restatement of the conclusion part of sentence 1. I highlight the above because  loses its value more quickly  has to be conflated with  becomes obsolete more quickly  from the passage, and  value  needs to be interpreted as an  ability —i.e. the ability for equipment to keep up with current biotechnological research avenues—rather than as anything tangible, such as a dollar value. Although the biotech industry would understandably have an interest in getting the new bill passed, so, too, might another tech industry, say, nanotechnology, that was a close runner-up in the obsolescence department. There is no  why  here behind the  what . That is, we get no further insight into a potential motivation for the biotech industry to lobby for legislation than what the passage has already laid out for us.

It is funny how one little word can turn a premise into a motivation, and  expect  does just that. This information provides an incentive for  biotechnology firms , our target group, to act on the problem that  businesses in every industry  may face: the need to replace old equipment with new. A forecast that current trends will continue  for the foreseeable future  would understandably spur the biotech industry to act sooner rather than later to get these tax breaks. This is not an ironclad answer, but it is better than the pure restatement of a conclusion in choice (A).

This is a classic sleight of hand. While we are supposed to be focusing on the biotechnology industry in the present to tease out a link to the tax bill, this answer tosses us a  legislator  with former ties to the industry instead. Although I feel the statement is overused,  correlation is not causation , and this link is weaker than the one provided by choice (B).

At least we know no other industry is responsible for the bill, but does that necessarily implicate the biotech industry? Nope. Besides, we are looking for  probable cause , not tangential evidence. This answer fails to deliver.

This one is difficult to assess without further qualification of  competing . I would think that  competing firms  would be those within the same industry. Guiding my reasoning is that the earlier part of the answer references  a biotechnology firm , so the answer on the whole seems to be pitting one biotech firm against other biotech firms. If so, why would we have a reason for the biotech industry  in its entirety  to get the proposed legislation passed, when all such firms would be affected equally, not to mention those outside the industry? This will not do. If we take  competing  to refer instead to firms in somewhat related technological industries, as in,    will be driven out of business by competing   firms , then we are really going out on a limb and jamming a square peg into a round hole. (Hey, I like to climb trees and do fun things up there.) I like to say that if you find yourself bending over backwards to justify an answer, it is almost assuredly going to be wrong. This interpretation of  competing  and the answer it is attached to only further the point.

In the end, I feel as though I can see how (B) best fits the rationale of what the question-writer was going for. You can only go by what you see on the screen in front of you, not by what you want to be there. Would I expect to see the question, as is, on the GMAT™. No. Is the question pointless, then? Well, I spent over two hours typing out this analysis and revising it after a busy day. I hope my efforts have not all been in vain. If you think with a little more intent about the small things that make CR passages and questions operate, then I suppose...

Happy studies, everyone.

- Andrew

Equipment used by private biotechnology-research firms becomes obsolet

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

Equipment used by private biotechnology-research firms becomes obsolet

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