In an effort to save money, a countrys government is considering

Question

In an effort to save money, a country’s government is considering reducing its military spending. However, without military contracts, crucial industries in that country face bankruptcy, which could disrupt the economy. Thus, the same government that is reducing its military spending will eventually have to provide these industries with money for peacetime research and development.

Which of the following states the conclusion of the passage above?

A. The necessity of providing money to keep crucial industries from going bankrupt will discourage the government from reducing its military budget.

B. If the government decreases its military budget, it will eventually be forced to increase its military budget to its former level.

C. The industries that receive research and development money will be successful in their efforts to convert to peacetime manufacturing.

D. In the event of war, this country would be unprepared for military conflict.

E. Reducing military spending to save money will result in some increases in other types of spending

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

rosyln · Answer

B; C; D are irrelevant. So let's keep A and E. 
A.  The necessity of providing money to keep crucial industries from going bankrupt will discourage the government from reducing its military budget. 
This is not the conclusion, because the passage doesn't suggest that the government will avoid cutting the military budget. It only explains the likely consequences if it does.
E.  Reducing military spending to save money will result in some increases in other types of spending. 
This is correct, because the passage concludes that cutting military spending to save money will force the government to spend money on R&D for industries to prevent economic disruption.
Therefore,  IMHO  E is the correct answer.

A_Nishith · Answer

A. The necessity of providing money to keep crucial industries from going bankrupt will discourage the government from reducing its military budget.

This goes beyond the scope of the argument. The passage does not say the government will be discouraged from reducing its military budget; it focuses on the consequences of doing so.
Eliminate.

B. If the government decreases its military budget, it will eventually be forced to increase its military budget to its former level.

This is not supported by the passage. The argument suggests a shift in spending (toward research and development), not a reversal back to military spending.
Eliminate.

C. The industries that receive research and development money will be successful in their efforts to convert to peacetime manufacturing.

This is speculative and not stated in the passage. The argument focuses on the need for funding, not the outcome of that funding.
Eliminate.

D. In the event of war, this country would be unprepared for military conflict.

This is irrelevant. The passage does not discuss preparedness for war.
Eliminate.

E. Reducing military spending to save money will result in some increases in other types of spending.

This aligns with the argument. The conclusion is that reducing military spending will lead to increased spending on research and development to support crucial industries.

Correct Answer: E

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The first answer choice (what we call answer choice A) might look very tempting at first, because it seems to take the argument to its logical conclusion:  “Hey, if cutting military spending is going to end up costing the country money, they may as well not do it.”  But the test writers consider answer  choice A  to be outside the scope of this argument. In fact, if you think about it, we have no idea whether or not the government will be discouraged, or even whether the costs of supplying research and development money will be greater than the savings in military spending. This answer goes much further than the argument itself.

Choice B  goes too far as well. Perhaps cutting military spending will turn out to be a bad idea, but even if that is true, how do we know that the country will then eventually decide to increase military spending? What might happen in the future is well outside the scope of this argument.

We can eliminate  choice C  for the same reason, because it merely goes on a tangent to speculate as to the ultimate fate of the industries mentioned in the passage. Whether these industries succeed in making the transition to peacetime manufacturing is not crucial to this argument.

If you are tempted by  choice D , you’re still thinking too much. When a country reduces its military spending, you could argue that it might be less prepared for war—but that is way outside the scope of this passage. Be careful not to impose your own value judgments or thought processes on these questions.

Answer: E

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.

In an effort to save money, a countrys government is considering

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

In an effort to save money, a countrys government is considering

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