fines levied

[CrazyGmatter]

Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine than it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.

(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.

(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally “right” thing only if doing so makes good business sense.

(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.

(E) Businesses are learning to exploit the public’s environmental awareness in promoting themselves.

[achar_varun]

A.

B strengthens the argument.
C & E are out of scope
D is out because it goes against the concept of profit, which the businesses desire.

[ssgomz]

IMO A

[nverma]

IMO D

[npalani07]

my answer: A

[romrubiens]

Premise n Conclusion
1)very high fines
2)businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Weaken Answer
===========
business ignore such loss

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.
We are interested in loss and not in accident

(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.
Out of scope

(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally “right” thing only if doing so makes good business sense.
Too vague

(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.
Matches our praphrased asnwer

(E) Businesses are learning to exploit the public’s environmental awareness in promoting themselves.
Out of scope

[Meggieski]

Why A?

If they underestimate.. they could still impose these safeguards just in case. I don't see how that would weaken it.

[arindambanerji]

IMO D

Conclusion -
Business install adeq sfaety equip

Premise -
Bus value profits
Fines levied >
Comp pay < for env safty equip

Assumption - Fines leads to reduction in profits.

Now if the company considers the cost of the fine as usual business expense then it undermines the assumption and we wont be able to reach the conclusion.

What is OA?

[krishnakumarhod]

Originally Posted by CrazyGmatter

Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine than it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.

(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.

(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally “right” thing only if doing so makes good business sense.

(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.

(E) Businesses are learning to exploit the public’s environmental awareness in promoting themselves.

IMO C .Negate C ,if businesses do not always think of its well being in all the matters.In this case if the business thinks more about saving the environment then the law need not be in place as the business already follow the precautions to save the environment!!

[arindambanerji]

Originally Posted by krishnakumarhod

IMO C .Negate C ,if businesses do not always think of its well being in all the matters.In this case if the business thinks more about saving the environment then the law need not be in place as the business already follow the precautions to save the environment!!

C strengthens the argument. We have to weaken it