The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big

Question

The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big American steel mills. In fact, the quotas will help “mini-mills” flourish in the United States. Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big American steel mills than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the claim made in the last sentence above?

(A) Quality rather than price is a major factor in determining the type of steel to be used for a particular application.

(B) Foreign steel mills have long produced grades of steel comparable in quality to the steel produced by the big American mills.

(C) American quotas on imported goods have often induced other countries to impose similar quotas on American goods.

(D) Domestic “mini-mills” consistently produce better grades of steel than do the big American mills.

(E) Domestic “mini-mills” produce low-volume, specialized types of steels that are not produced by the big American steel mills.

AndreiGMAT · Accepted Answer

I learnt a   valuable   lesson from this question:

1. Pay attention to what question is really asking.

2. Don't waste time on GMAT distraction traps.

In this problem the question is basically asking:

Will small mills take business away from big mills?   Since it is a weakening question we need to find answer   NO   to this question.

(E) Small mills produce different type of steel, they thus   will not take business away from big mills  . That's the answer.

I wasted a lot of time on two distracting premises in the first two sentences of the passage, and got a wrong answer.

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's review the author's reasoning:

In the absence of the quotas, foreign steel mills (FSM) will take SOME business from big American steel mills (BASM). 
 With the quotas, small domestic mills (SDM) will take an even greater amount of business from big American steel mills. 
 Therefore, the imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will NOT help the big American steel mills and will help “mini-mills” flourish in the United States.

So for whatever reason, the author believes that the quotas will allow smaller domestic mills to take a bigger chunk of business from the big American mills.

We are trying to evaluate the claim made in the last sentence. In order to do so, we need to compare the amount of business taken by FSM without quotas to the amount of business taken by SDM with quotas. Choice (B) simply tells us  why  foreign steel mills have been able to take some of the business from big American mills (they make a similar product). But what will happen when the quotas are introduced? Will SDM take an even greater chunk of business from BASM? Choice (B) does not help us answer that question or evaluate the author's claim. Eliminate (B).

Yes, it is true that SDM  might  also make products similar to those produced by BASM. But remember that we are looking for an answer that "would cast the  most serious  doubt on the claim made in the last sentence above." It doesn't have to PROVE that the claim is not correct, but it has to cast serious doubt.

Going back to the author's reasoning... currently, FSM take some business from BASM. If quotas are introduced, maybe it will be better for BASM since they won't have to deal with the competition from FSM. However, according to the author, if the quotas are introduced, BASM will face even GREATER competition from SDM. So, great, we've dealt with the foreign competition but now we are worse off than before because we have new and greater competition from SDM.

But what if SDM and BASM make different products? In that case, it is LESS LIKELY that the SDM will complete with BASM once the quotas are introduced. Sure, choice (E) doesn't say that SDM ONLY produces "low-volume, specialized types of steels," but it certainly implies that SDM focuses on a different type of product. Even though this doesn't DISPROVE the author's claim, it casts some serious doubt, and we would want more information to evaluate the claim.

All of the other choices can be eliminated, and (E) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!

ezhilkumarank · Answer

Claim or conclusion: Those small domestic mines will take more business from the big American coal mines than would have been taken by the foreign coal mines in the absence of quotas.

Hidden assumption: The small domestic mines will be able to mine the same quantity of coal that is presently imported from the foreign coal mines.

Since this is a weaken type of question hence attack the assumption.

Option A: Quality is not discussed in the stimulus and we do not the quality of either the foreign or small domestic firms. Hence eliminated.
Option B: Again the question of quality does not come into the picture. Also the comparison is between the foreign and big American coal mining companies. Eliminated.
Option C: Totally out of context.
Option D: Comparison between big American coal mining companies and small ones. Eliminated.

Option E: Directly attacks the assumption used for making the claim/conclusion. Hence it wins.

Answer E.

BKimball · Answer

I think ezhilkumarank does a great job with this question, but I want to make a clarification.

I would argue that the assumption here is not so much that the mini-mines will be able to produce the same quantity of coal as the larger mines, but rather that they even produce the same kind of coal. If this assumption were stated and became a premise, it would be quite clear that quota will have no impact on the relationship between the mini-mills and the large U.S. mills because they aren't even producing the same thing.

Hope this helps!

sarangadhar · Answer

to me, probably I am not looking at proper direction, imposing quota doesn't really have anything to do with selecting answer.

A -- no where quality topic comes in stimulus.
B -- same as A
C -- irrelevant to last statement...
D -- this is NOT weakening but helping the last statement... if it all we think quality comes in picture.
E -- this says Mini-mines have different business from big-mines and hence we can conclude there will not be any business shifting from big-mills to mini-mills. This directly opposes the last statement in the stimulus which says mini-mines will capture some of the market of big-mines... so, correct answer.

naish · Answer

I was confused by the last sentence - "Those small domestic mills will take more business from the
big Americal steel mills than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas." It made me think that D could be the correct option. Any comments?

sidvish · Answer

This question is easy but I found it a little time consuming because of the question stem. It takes your focus away from the overall conclusion (which IMO is statement 1). The question asks us to weaken the claim made in the last sentence, i.e. -> small domestic mills will take MORE business from big American steel mills than the business foreign steel mills would have taken in the absence of quotas

To weaken this we dont really need to show that the small mills will have no impact - just that the smalls mill will not have MORE of an impact than foreign steel mills.

E is still the best option, but to be honest - it really doesnt address any of the comparison that the final statement makes. For instance - we dont even know what kind of steel the foreign mills produced. To make this a better choice the statement must address that factor (option E ought to read - E) Domestic “mini-mills” produce low-volume, specialized types of steels that are not produced by EITHER the big
American steel mills OR THE FOREIGN STEEL MILLS

Anyway - it's a good lesson to remember that we're looking for the right answer (aka the best answer) not the perfect answer. If you internalize this CR will be a lot more pleasant!

semwal · Answer

fact 1. The imposition of quotas limiting imported coal will help the big American coal mines.
fact 2. In fact, the quotas will help “mini-mines” flourish in the United States. 
fact3. Those small domestic mines will take more business from the big American coal mines than would have been taken by the foreign coal mines in the absence of quotas.

there seems to be a slight weakness in the logic above......if the small mines take away more business than the foreign mines.......FACT 1 FALLS FLAT......

PROSPECT ANSWER----- a weakner will bring out why the domestic small mines will not affect the business of the large mines.....one way is to bring out the fact that both produce different type of coal hence the market of the large mines is not in competition with the small coal mines.....both have different market and hence don't affect each other........

(A) Quality rather than price is a major factor in determining the type of coal to be used for a particular application. generic statement... irrelevant  
(B) Foreign coal mines have long produced grades of coal comparable in quality to the coal produced by the big American mines.... does not weaken 
(C) American quotas on imported goods have often induced other countries to impose similar quotas on American goods... lets leave other countries for now.... 
(D) Domestic “mini-mines” consistently produce better grades of coal than do the big American mines...... strengthener 
(E) Domestic “mini-mines” produce low-volume, specialized types of coal that are not produced by the big American steel mines..... MATCHES OUR PROSPECT ANSWER....

manyatpr · Answer

The claim is:

Those small domestic mills will take more business from thebig Americal steel mills than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas. 
 To weaken this, we would have to weaken the flawed assumption that small domestic mills would benefit business wise from the big mills in the absence of quotas, 
Option D says Domestic “mini-mills” consistently produce better grades of steel than do the big American mills. maybe they do, but that would not stop them from doing business with the Big mills. This option is talking about the quality of steel which has never been under dispute. On the other hand E weakens the claim completely .If the kind of steel produced by the small have nothing in common with the big, the small would not be interested in doing business with the big mills with or without the presence of quotas.

Divyadisha · Answer

The possible weakeners could be:-
1) Demand of Big- Steel mills will remain higher than the demand of small steel mills.
2) Product produced by BM is different from product produced by SM
3) Target markets for BM is different from SM.

Looking at the answer choices, E falls into one of these weakness and hence is the answer

ydmuley · Answer

As this a CR question, let’s begin reading the question stem first: The question is talking about – most serious doubt – which implies this is a WEAKEN THE ARGUMENT question.

Premise : Imposition of Quota’s will not help Big steel mills, rather would help flourish mini mills

Conclusion : Small mills will make take more business from big steel mills

Author is assuming that the type of product manufactured by small mills is same as that of big mills

(A) Quality rather than price is a major factor in determining the type of steel to be used for a particular application.
 - Usage of steel is not even discussed – this option is  OUT OF SCOPE

(B) Foreign steel mills have long produced grades of steel comparable in quality to the steel produced by the big American mills.
 - Does not explain the reason why smalls can flourish compared to big mills

(C) American quotas on imported goods have often induced other countries to impose similar quotas on American goods.
 - Author is not even talking about other countries (import is different as compared to this topic) –  it is IRRELEVANT

(D) Domestic “mini-mills” consistently produce better grades of steel than do the big American mills.
 - This does not weaken the argument rather does the opposite

(E) Domestic “mini-mills” produce low-volume, specialized types of steels that are not produced by the big American steel mills.
 - This targets the assumptions that products of big and small companies might be same, this is weakening the argument –  E is CORRECT answer.

vityakim@gmail.com · Answer

The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big American steel mills. In fact, the quotas will help “mini-mills” flourish in the United States. Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big Americal steel mills than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the claim made in the last sentence above?

(A) Quality rather than price is a major factor in determining the type of steel to be used for a particular application.
(B) Foreign steel mills have long produced grades of steel comparable in quality to the steel produced by the big American mills.
(C) American quotas on imported goods have often induced other countries to impose similar quotas on American goods.
(D) Domestic “mini-mills” consistently produce better grades of steel than do the big American mills.
(E) Domestic “mini-mills” produce low-volume, specialized types of steels that are not produced by the big American steel mills.

My 2 cents.
I was between D and E.
The problem of D is that quality is not discussed at all. And if you were to ask "so what?" there really isn't any good answer.

E is saying mini mills and big mills are not in competition. So quota is not an issue. 
Hence, E.

chesstitans · Answer

hello, there is no key word in the passage. The only way to find the conclusion or the main premise is to look at the stem question. Do we have always to pay attention to too many small details? Otherwise, it is really confusing to figure out which sentence is the actual claim in the passage?

sunny91 · Answer

I have an issue with option E- Because the author does not say mini-mills can ONLY produce that kind of produce, this leaves us to evaluate the consideration that can mini-mills produce the production that big-mills produce? If yes, then we are not able to weaken the argument. Also, option E makes sense if we say"Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big American steel mills." However, we have the part "than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas." So, how does this make sense in line of thinking option E as the answer. Also, why is B wrong.

akara2500 · Answer

Hi,  GMATNinja  , actually what I comprehended from the question stem was: 
With quota, the SDM is benefited but the BASM not benefited
WITHOUT quota, the SDM IS STILL benefited even more than the FSM, BSAM is still not benefited
Correct me if I'm wrong

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

akara2500 , please explain your reasoning here: "WITHOUT quota, the SDM IS STILL benefited even more than the FSM, BSAM is still not benefited".

According to the last sentence, the amount of business that FSM would take from BSAM WITHOUT quotas is LESS than the amount that SDM will take from BSAM WITH quotas. There is nothing to suggest that SDM will benefit more than FSM in the absence of quotas.

CEdward · Answer

The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big American steel mills. In fact, the quotas will help “mini-mills” flourish in the United States. Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big American steel mills than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the claim made in the last sentence above?

(A)  Quality  rather than price is a major factor in determining the type of steel to be used for a particular application. X

Quality is irrelevant.

(B)  Foreign steel mills  have long produced grades of steel comparable in quality to the steel produced by the big American mills. X

(C) American quotas on imported goods have often induced other countries to impose similar quotas on American goods. X

Totally irrelevant.

(D) Domestic “mini-mills” consistently produce better grades of steel than do the big American mills. X

This acts as a strengthened and gives us more reason to believe mini-mills will poach the business of larger Mills.

(E) Domestic “mini-mills” produce low-volume, specialized types of steels that are not produced by the big American steel mills.

Correct. I would say this is a weaker weakener. This is saying that mini-mills and larger mills have different specialties so perhaps the smaller mills won't be so so busy with poaching the business from the larger mills. However, it doesn't preclude the possibility that small mills can still do the same things larger mills can (although at a smaller capacity).

mSKR · Answer

GMATNinjaTwo ,  GMATNinja   GMATNinja Two :please comment

Actually I understood the given statement as SDM will get more business from BASM instead FSM get. It means SDM may need to supply some products to BASM instead of FSM need to supply because of quota.

With this thought I choose E because I read as SDM don't produce ( like supplier) those products that BASM produce, so BASM needs to depend on FSM. hence it weakens the statement.

I got the answer correct but I would like to know how did you take the meaning of " take more business from the big American steel mills ". If it says competition , should it not be "take more business OF the big American steel mills "

Please correct me  VeritasKarishma  ( query is more on meaning issue)

GMATNinja · Answer

The first issue is that it doesn’t really make sense for one steel mill to supply steel or products to another steel mill. Although something like this could happen, it’s unlikely that Apple would sell iPhones to Samsung. So, part of the problem is that the situation that you described doesn’t really make sense.

The other issue is that the “of” vs. “from” distinction that you made does not play out in practice. If I said that McKinsey took business from BCG, that does not necessarily mean that McKinsey was a client of BCG. It’s equally, if not more, likely that McKinsey took some of the business that BCG was doing and thus decreased BCG’s overall business.

Likewise, when the passage says that SDMs will take more business from BASMs than would have been taken by FSMs, the context makes it clear that SDMs are taking business FROM BASMs (business that would otherwise go to BASMs).

I hope that helps!

The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not help the big

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