The imposition of quotas limiting imported steel will not

[sheetal]

Source: GMATPrep

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 steel that are not produced by the big American steel mills

I stumbled on this question. Can someone explain the ans?

Do we need to weaken the below claim?
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

[anandisonline]

the question itself is confusing ,,,
But somehow I will go for E.

If we have to weaken the approach then i think C it is.

[ENGINPASA1]

the question hinges on understanding the conclusion in full - small US mills will take business from US big mills.

make a slash chart it makes life so much easier.

you will see that choice a b and c are not really pertaining to the arguement and especially the conclusion (last sentence).

D - is strengthening the arguement

Vuala you have E. E explains that US small mills cant take from US big mills because they are producing a different type of steel.

qa please. I am going with E.

[RonPurewal]

E explains that US small mills cant take from US big mills because they are producing a different type of steel.

qa please. I am going with E.

well played.

[poonamchiK]

I am still unable to understand this question. and especially

E - Domestic "mini-mills" produce low-volume specialized types of steel that are not produced by the big American steel mills

How does this go and weaken the statement tht small mills are taking business from bigger mills.

Some1 pls help explain, as this question goes over my head - NEAT!

P

[jnelson0612]

I am still unable to understand this question. and especially

E - Domestic "mini-mills" produce low-volume specialized types of steel that are not produced by the big American steel mills

How does this go and weaken the statement tht small mills are taking business from bigger mills.

Some1 pls help explain, as this question goes over my head - NEAT!

P

Poonamchik, E states that the small mills are making "specialized types of steel that are not produced by the big American steel mills". The small mills cannot take away the big steel mills' business when they are not producing the type of steel that the big steel mills produce. They are not legitimate competitors of the big mills.

[catennacio]

Hi instructors,

It would be an obvious E for me if the stimulus stopped at "Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big American steel mills."

However, the part "than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas." confuses me. When I read this part, in my mind, I think there are 3 parties: the small mills, the big mills, and the foreign mills. According to the [full] last sentences, we can deduce that before the quota, the foreign mills took the business from the big mills, the small mills did take some of the business from the big mills (because of the word "more"), and the small mills took less than or equal businesses from the big mills than did the foreign mills take. After the quota the small mills take more businesses from the big mills than do the foreign mills.

So I stumbled upon this 3-way relationship and tried to attack the fact that small mills took more business from big mills than foreign mills did.

Can you please explain how this way of thinking is not right and how to classify the 3-way relationship as a distracting/side info and not something major to attack?

Thanks!

-C

[messi10]

Hey,

To answer your question about what to attack, that is simply given in the question stem. It goes as far as to tell you that the claim is the last sentence. In a small argument such as this one, I don't think you need to use such a complicated logic to start solving the question.

Sometimes, the claim is a long sentence that is not very clear in its original wording. In such cases, its best to rephrase the claim into simpler language so you can get the gist of it.

If anything, you should be trying to simplify the claim, not complicate it. By using your three way logic, you have made it more work for yourself.

Also, you have gone on to deduce about how things were before the quotas were put in place. I would be a bit careful about making such deductions as these are not given in the argument.

Regards

Sunil

[catennacio]

Hey,

To answer your question about what to attack, that is simply given in the question stem. It goes as far as to tell you that the claim is the last sentence. In a small argument such as this one, I don't think you need to use such a complicated logic to start solving the question.

Sometimes, the claim is a long sentence that is not very clear in its original wording. In such cases, its best to rephrase the claim into simpler language so you can get the gist of it.

If anything, you should be trying to simplify the claim, not complicate it. By using your three way logic, you have made it more work for yourself.

Also, you have gone on to deduce about how things were before the quotas were put in place. I would be a bit careful about making such deductions as these are not given in the argument.

Regards

Sunil

Hi, thanks for your answer.

My understanding of "the claim in the last sentence" is "small mills will take more businesses from big mills than foreign mills would", not "small mills will take more business from big mills". In my mind there is a comparison here, hence my question in the previous post.

You're right, in such a small argument like this I should not complicate things, but during practice, there were questions about which I thought to be simple but in fact, they were not. So I can't assume short arguments contain simple reasoning, can I? I'm not a native speaker so there might be a language barrier here.

How to avoid this in the future? Can you shed some light please? Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Hi instructors,

It would be an obvious E for me if the stimulus stopped at "Those small domestic mills will take more business from the big American steel mills."
absence
However, the part "than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the of quotas." confuses me. When I read this part, in my mind, I think there are 3 parties: the small mills, the big mills, and the foreign mills. According to the [full] last sentences, we can deduce that before the quota, the foreign mills took the business from the big mills, the small mills did take some of the business from the big mills (because of the word "more"), and the small mills took less than or equal businesses from the big mills than did the foreign mills take. After the quota the small mills take more businesses from the big mills than do the foreign mills.

So I stumbled upon this 3-way relationship and tried to attack the fact that small mills took more business from big mills than foreign mills did.

Can you please explain how this way of thinking is not right and how to classify the 3-way relationship as a distracting/side info and not something major to attack?

Thanks!

-C

the problem in what you're asking here can be summarized in three words -- in fact, in three of your very own words: "how to classify".
this is the big problem with the way lots of people approach critical reasoning problems: they think that these problems involve some sort of formal, academic logic, in which you have to "classify" things and learn these weird boolean ways of thinking that are not like how normal people think.

the cure is to dispense with that kind of thinking, and just approach these passages the way you would approach normal conversations (notwithstanding the fact that you probably wouldn't have normal conversations about the interests of competing steel mills).

here's an analogy:
let's say i have an expensive leather jacket ("jacket #1"). then, one day, you see me wearing a jacket that looks even more expensive ("jacket #2"), and you exclaim, "wow, that one must have cost even more than jacket #1!"
technically, this is a comparison. but i think it's clear that if i tell you "oh, i actually got jacket #2 for free, because i know the designer personally" then that weakens your claim. after all, i got the jacket for free! so, even though there is no direct reference to the other jacket, the implications are straightforward.

the analogy here is
(the second jacket is free) <--> (the small mills don't take any business from the big mills, because they make things that the big mills don't make)

--

in general, this is the not-so-secret secret of critical reasoning on this exam: it is meant to test what is essentially the way in which real-world human beings think, NOT some sort of weird formal logic in which you have to "classify" things.
in fact, the more "classifying" you do, the worse you are likely to perform on the cr problems -- because that sort of overly formalized thinking is going to start competing with real-world thinking for space in your brain.

[ikuta.yamahashi]

Dear insturctor:

Although I get the right answer E, the option E is still suspected to me, below is my reasoning.
(E) Domestic "mini-mills" produce low-volume, specialized types of steel that are not produced by the big American steel mills.
E says Mini-mills produce specialized types, but big mills cannot do so, here, they do not say the big mills's products cannot be made by mini-mills, therefore, what I can draw from E is that the Big mills cannot grap mini-mills' market rather than mini-mill cannot grap big mills' market.

I am not intent to challenge the OA, just ask confirmation to my reasoning from your expert point of view.

[jlucero]

Dear insturctor:

Although I get the right answer E, the option E is still suspected to me, below is my reasoning.
(E) Domestic "mini-mills" produce low-volume, specialized types of steel that are not produced by the big American steel mills.
E says Mini-mills produce specialized types, but big mills cannot do so, here, they do not say the big mills's products cannot be made by mini-mills, therefore, what I can draw from E is that the Big mills cannot grap mini-mills' market rather than mini-mill cannot grap big mills' market.

I am not intent to challenge the OA, just ask confirmation to my reasoning from your expert point of view.

If what we are trying to weaken is the claim: "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." then the opposite would be: "Those small domestic mills will NOT take more business from the big American steel mills than would have been taken by the foreign steel mills in the absence of quotas."

E implies that there would be minimal competition between the two types of mills, so neither one would be taking business from the other.

[ikuta.yamahashi]

E implies that there would be minimal competition between the two types of mills, so neither one would be taking business from the other.

Thanks jlucero,

Basicly, I can understand your reasoning; but is there still a gap between mini-mills can produce somthing that big-mills can't and your implication

that there would be minimal competition between the two types of mills

?

Because the author do not say mini-mills can ONLY produce that kind of produce, thus leave us to evaluate consideration that can mini-mills produce the production that big-mills produce in the past? The different answer would elicit different logical direction...

correct me if i am wrong.

[jlucero]

That's a legitimate point about this problem. I guess I would point you back to the question itself:

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

The question isn't asking for something that makes the conclusion untrue. Just something that would cast the most doubt on the conclusion.

[ikuta.yamahashi]

That's a legitimate point about this problem. I guess I would point you back to the question itself:

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

The question isn't asking for something that makes the conclusion untrue. Just something that would cast the most doubt on the conclusion.

Thanks Joe:

That make sense, I should not take weaken as falsification. Many thanks for you correct my consideration.

Yours Yama