[dextar]

Business are suffering because of lack of money available for development loans.Ot help businesses, the govt. plans to modify the income tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a large portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.
Whicb of the following most seriusly undermines the effectiveness of the govt. plan to increase the amount of moneyavailable for development loans for business?
A When level of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
B The increased tax revenue the govt. would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personla income taxes during the first year of its plan

C Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirmentsavings

D Bankers generally wil not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules

E The modified tax structure wold give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

OA is A. Isn' t option A strengthening the argument?

[tank_I]

Originally Posted by dextar

Business are suffering because of lack of money available for development loans.Ot help businesses, the govt. plans to modify the income tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a large portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.
Whicb of the following most seriusly undermines the effectiveness of the govt. plan to increase the amount of moneyavailable for development loans for business?
A When level of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
B The increased tax revenue the govt. would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personla income taxes during the first year of its plan

C Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirmentsavings

D Bankers generally wil not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules

E The modified tax structure wold give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

OA is A. Isn' t option A strengthening the argument?

On first look, it does seem like, it is strengthening the argument. The catch word here is consumer borrowing. The government wants money in savings, so that businesses can borrow that money. If the consumers(Retail borrowers .. ppl who take a home loan or an auto loan or a personal loan etc) end up taking all the money(corresponding increase) then the businesses dont get access to extra credit and continue to suffer(Business are suffering because of lack of money available for development loans).

Hope this helps

[tank_I]

Originally Posted by abchekstylo

The reasoning behind the correct answer choice is as follows:
The argument says that tall seating would lead to increase in profits for the restaurant by allowing the viewers to have a better view of the celebrities.But, will that really lead to more profits? What if the people who were there to just get a glimpse of the celebs didnt order anything expensive or ordered very less?That wouldnt
lead to profits at all.
Hence C.

My take on the explanation:
A and B are irrelevant as they talk about what the celebrities would do.
Nothing in the argument says that there is a correlation between time spent and cost of food ordered. It just says that stools would mean lower turnaround time for each customer, thereby increasing the number of customers coming into Hollywood.
E is irrelevant and absurd.
By process of elimination C seems to be a good choice, Now look @ why it actually is.

"Many customers come to watch the celebritis who frequent Hollywood"and"They would prefer tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities". Combining these two we can say that the customer would spend more time lingering around Hollywood as he is getting what he came for - "A better view of the celebrities"
This breaks the argument that "They typically DO NOT stay as long as diners seated at std. ht. tables"
And thus the flaw in the argument is that it wants us to believe/accept that the customers would be an exception to the logical generalization about lingering.

Clearly one of the toughest CRs, I have seen from the GMAC stable.

[getneonow]

Guys..pour ur inputs on boldface CR's..

1.Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies.
B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence.
C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.

Neo

[montaqes]

Originally Posted by getneonow

Guys..pour ur inputs on boldface CR's..

1.Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies.
B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence.
C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.

Neo

I would go with (B)....what's the OA...

[tank_I]

Originally Posted by getneonow

Guys..pour ur inputs on boldface CR's..

1.Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies.
B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence.
C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.

Neo

Choice D
The first line is not an evidence, its an intermediate conclusion (derived from the evidence that Top executives are buying shares in their own bank) drawn by the bank's depositors.
It is this conclusion/reasoning that is called into question later in the argument.
The second line is again not an evidence (might well be overoptimistic). It clearly is a conclusion and is contrary to the inetermediate conclusion, which leaves us with choice D. Also this is the final conclusion that the author hints at thus making it the main conclusion of the passage. D is the winner

[getneonow]

Originally Posted by tank_I

Choice D
The first line is not an evidence, its an intermediate conclusion (derived from the evidence that Top executives are buying shares in their own bank) drawn by the bank's depositors.
It is this conclusion/reasoning that is called into question later in the argument.
The second line is again not an evidence (might well be overoptimistic). It clearly is a conclusion and is contrary to the inetermediate conclusion, which leaves us with choice D. Also this is the final conclusion that the author hints at thus making it the main conclusion of the passage. D is the winner

Ok that was very close..The given OA is E!!

Wud u want to refine ur reasoning or wud stick with it?? btw i have no explanation. just want to see if someone can reason this out boldly

Neo

[abchekstylo]

Originally Posted by tank_I

Choice D
The first line is not an evidence, its an intermediate conclusion (derived from the evidence that Top executives are buying shares in their own bank) drawn by the bank's depositors.
It is this conclusion/reasoning that is called into question later in the argument.
The second line is again not an evidence (might well be overoptimistic). It clearly is a conclusion and is contrary to the inetermediate conclusion, which leaves us with choice D. Also this is the final conclusion that the author hints at thus making it the main conclusion of the passage. D is the winner

Alrite lemme try.
The part "The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument;" is undoubtedly correct since it is an intermediate conclusion after all and not evidence as suggested by options A and B.
So C,D and E are left.

"They might well be overoptimistic" is again not an evidence. So C is gone.

Out of options D and E, i think this part is just another conclusion and not the main conclusion. The main conclusion of the argument has to be something on the lines of "Hence the rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse might as well be true."

That makes E the winner.
But of course, with the OA out, reasoning gets a little more focussed

[getneonow]

Originally Posted by abchekstylo

Alrite lemme try.
The part "The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument;" is undoubtedly correct
........................
Out of options D and E, i think this part is just another conclusion and not the main conclusion. The main conclusion of the argument has to be something on the lines of "Hence the rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse might as well be true."

That makes E the winner.
But of course, with the OA out, reasoning gets a little more focussed

yeah..if this appears in exam def i am gonna get a miss

Neo

[getneonow]

Ok..here's one more- wat-the-hell type boldface


One of the limiting factors in human physical performance is the amount of oxygen that is absorbed by the muscles from the bloodstream. Accordingly, entrepreneurs have begun selling at gymnasiums and health clubs bottles of drinking water, labeled "SuperOXY," that has extra oxygen dissolved in the water. Such water would be useless in improving physical performance, however, since the only way to get oxygen into the bloodstream so that it can be absorbed bye the muscles is through the lungs.

Which of the following, if true, would serve the same function in the argument as the statement in boldface?

A. the water lost in exercising can be replaced with ordinary tap water
B. the amount of oxygen in the blood of people who are exercising is already more than the muscle can absorb
C. world-class athletes turn in record performance without such water
D. frequent physical exercise increases the body's ability to take in and use
oxygen
E. lack of oxygen is not the only factor limiting human physical performance

Neo