Adv doc Q 48
Soumya, the key to your query lies in the question. Watch for the phrase – “if implemented”
Which means that the conclusion talks about the outcome “if the plan is implemented”. Hence there is no reason for us to think whether the plan will be implemented or not. Hence whether the lobbyists will succeed or not is out of question. C is a trap that makes the test taker think in the below manner-
What if the plan isnt implemented because industrial lobbyists could create problems, and because the plan will not get implemented, there will be no market for foreign exporters in Remo. Hence conclusion weakened :-). That is how GMAT will set the trap. I used to think like this a lot before, hence i could see your line of reasoning, but with practice have improved a lot and sure you can too
And as Akshay mentioned above, A has a clear and certain tone , hence don’t think too much about whether the local businesses will utilize or not(you are applying much logic and thinking far out of the argument, not recommended)
Hope this helps
Hi Soumya – My take on this is that we need to identify the option that “seriously weakens” the argument.
Option C tell us that lobbyists are “trying” to prevent implementation of the regulation. In absence of further details, probability is 50% only. Tone is “may” and not “will”.
Option A says ” The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives…”. The will makes it more certain that the incentives will be granted and the probability of local manufacturers starting production of pollution-control systems is fair. Hence, I think that A should be chosen.
Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of Remo has created serious environmental
problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Remo is developing a
clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such
systems. Since no companies in Remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if
implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control
systems.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and
manufacture pollution-control devices.
B. Foreign exporters would provide factory-trained technicians to maintain the pollutioncontrol
systems sold to Remo.
C. Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in Remo are trying to prevent the
implementation of the government regulations.
D. The regulations that Remo plans to implement are much less strict than those in neighboring
nations.
E. Pollution in Remo has caused serious health problems for workers, contributing to a
significant increase in the number of workdays lost to illness.
Confused between A & C.
I find similar flaws in A & C
A. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and
manufacture pollution-control devices. (we do not know whether local businesses will utilize this, so can’t conclude it will weaken the argument.)
C. Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in Remo are trying to prevent the
implementation of the government regulations. (we do not know if lobbyists will succeed, so can’t conclude it will weaken the argument.)
Is my approach right? How to arrive at the right ans “A”?
i was confused between option A and C. zeroed in on C as i was not able to negate A and change the conclusion. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for foreign businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control devices. will this be the correct negation?since tax incentives will be given for manufacturing and not for direct exporting, will it not reduce the market opportunity of foreign exporters?
