Question

Critics insist that government regulation of business has made it more difficult for American businesses to operate profitably and has destroyed their ability to compete with foreign producers of consumer goods. This argument is not compelling. Government regulation of business was never as active in this nation as it was between the years 1975 and 1985, and in those years the average net worth of American family increased more than it had in any previous decade. The author's argument would be most seriously weakened if it were true that

• A. 80 percent of all businesses started during the decade 1975-1985 lost money in their first year.
• B. More businesses declared bankruptcy during the period 1975-1985 than in any previous decade.
• C. During the decade 1975-1985, America imported more consumer goods than it exported.
• D. The increase in net worth of average American families during the years 1975-1985 was largely due to an increase in the value of residential homes.
• E. The average interest rate charged on business and home mortgage loans was higher during the decade 1975-1985 than it had been in any previous decade.

Hint:

When an argument uses one metric (A) to prove a point about another concept (B), the strongest way to weaken it is to show that A and B are not actually related, or that A was caused by something else entirely (C).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a Critical Reasoning question that asks you to weaken an argument. The author's argument uses a piece of evidence (increased family net worth) to counter a claim about business profitability and competitiveness. To weaken the argument, we must show that the author's evidence is irrelevant to the point being made.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Critics' Claim: Regulation hurts business profitability and competitiveness.
Author's Counter-Argument: The critics are wrong.
Author's Evidence: During the peak regulation period (1975-1985), the average family's net worth increased.
The Logical Flaw/Assumption: The author assumes that an increase in the average family's net worth is a good indicator of business profitability and competitiveness. We need to find an answer choice that breaks this link.


(A) This is about new businesses losing money, which is common. It doesn't strongly refute the author's point about the overall economy.
(B) This directly supports the critics' claim but doesn't attack the author's specific evidence (family net worth). It's a good weakener, but we are looking for the best one.
(C) This also supports the critics' claim about competition but doesn't address the author's counter-evidence.
(D) This is the correct answer. It directly attacks the author's evidence by providing an alternative explanation for the increase in family net worth. If net worth grew because of housing value inflation (a non-business, non-competitive factor), then it has no bearing on whether businesses were profitable or competitive. This shows the author's evidence is irrelevant.
(E) High interest rates could hurt businesses, supporting the critics, but it doesn't sever the link between family net worth and business success as effectively as (D).
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author uses the increase in family net worth as proof that businesses were doing well. Option (D) provides an alternative cause for the increase in family net worth (housing bubbles) that is unrelated to business performance, thus making the author's evidence irrelevant and seriously weakening the argument.