Which if the following most logically completes the argument?

United states manufacturers currently produce most of the world's solar-power generators-most of which are exported to Europe. However, European manufacturers are emerging and probably will ultimately capture much of the European market. The United States government is funding initiatives intended to encourage use of solar power within the United States. If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States,United States manufacturers will probably maintain significant production levels, since---------------

A) some United States manufacturers have been substantially increasing their output over the last several years.
B) the efficiency of solar-power generators in converting energy from the Sun into electric power is not improving as fast as it once did
c) Just sa European manufacturerenjoy certain advantages in Europe, so do united States manufacturers in the United States.
d) European government are currently undertaking initiatives to stimulate the use of solar power within Europe
e) the current market for solar-power generators in the United States is very limited.

Pls explain what is the correct answer and why other choices are wrong? What is the best way to arrive at the correct answer in these types of question?

ok, one thing should be clear at the outset: you're trying to fill in a gap in the logic. (in fact, there's a literal gap to fill in!)

here's a diagram type thingy:
euro companies emerge
AND
euro companies take over euro market
AND
u.s. market emerges
AND
----
THEREFORE
u.s. companies will replace euro market sales with u.s. market sales

we currently have facts asserting that the u.s. firms will lose their hold on the euro market. however, we have nothing asserting that the u.s. firms will gain a hold on the u.s. market, the second half of the conclusion.

therefore, we need an assertion that says, or implies, that the u.s. firms will gain a hold in the u.s. market (i.e., the euro firms won't take over the u.s. market as well).

(a) irrelevant:
- recent increases are unrelated to maintaining production in the future
- recent increases in production have nothing to do with the main logic gap (ensuring that u.s. firms will have a hold on the u.s. market)

(b) irrelevant:
- this has nothing to do with anything related to the argument

(c) correct
this statement strongly suggests that the u.s. firms will dominate the u.s. market for the same reasons that the euro firms will dominate the euro market.

(d) doesn't help
- we know that the u.s. firms will lose the euro market anyway, so it doesn't matter whether that market grows or not

(e) WEAKENS the argument
- if the u.s. market is very small, then it's likely that the production/revenue/etc of u.s. firms will decline rather than stay constant.

--

as far as you query 'what is the best way to arrive at the correct answer': there's clearly not an extremely simple way, since gmac would not bother writing these questions if there were. the best way to figure out the underlying logic is to make a diagram (like the one i made above, with the ands and therefores), which will force you to map out the logic.

I chose E... because... like it was written that market is small "currently" and ( guv is making effort to increase.. the size )

so This should help US Solar Energy makers.. because then they will have more people to cater to...


I dint like C.. because... C was more vague compared to E..

Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

here's something to keep in mind when you do these.

if you're torn between two answers on Strengthen/Weaken, you should try to PICK THE ANSWER THAT'S MORE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE PASSAGE'S LINE OF REASONING.

in this case, here are the "specific elements" i'm talking about:
this argument is designed to show that
* american manufacturers will still maintain domestic market share,
* even with the encroachment of the european manufacturers on the market.

the problem with the choice you selected is that it has nothing to do with the latter of these two factors. in addition, as mentioned in my post above, if the american market is very small to start with, then this factor works against the argument (even if that small market grows so that it's ... not so small).

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Even though I don't want to question the answer choice, I probably would have chosen E.

E is likely because
1. The US Govt is encouraging more solar-power initiatives
2. The current solar power generator market in the US is low.

(1) and (2) imply that there is a significant scope for solar power generators in US.

By further thinking, which is unlikely to happen during exam, I can question the validity of (E) because any new interest in US solar power need not depend on US manufacturers.

I also selected option E. Below is the reasoning of doing so:

The argument says If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States,United States manufacturers will probably maintain significant production levels. We need to find the option which tells that the production will not decrease even if the demand from Europe will decrease.

Also as a premise, the argument talks abt the initiative saying that The United States government is funding initiatives intended to encourage use of solar power within the United States.

This shows that the market of solar generators is coming up in US and there will be an increase in demand. Hence the reduction from Europe will be compensated from the local market. This is what we can deduce from the argument given.

Please correct where I am wrong in this.

If these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States,United States manufacturers will probably maintain significant production levels.


The assumptions here are:

1. The increase in demand for solar-power generators would be sufficient enough for US Manufacturers to maintain significant production levels.
2. European Manufacturers capturing the EU market would probably not be capturing the US Markets to such an extent that it would decrease the production levels of generators by US Manufacturers significantly.

Now, the underline asks us to state extra evidence to make the conclusion look feasible. It can be either an assumption or a statement that can validate the assumption.

e. the current market for solar-power generators in the United States is very limited.

This statement can go two ways since we do not know the exact increase which the government's plan will bring out and how it is when compared to the decrease in the market share caused by EU Capture. It is possible that even though the market is very limited, the increase in the market was significant enough to cover the decrease in the market share caused by European
It is also possible that since the market was already very limited, the increase in demand might not be that great to cover up the decrease due to European markets. Since both are possible and we cannot make a clear strengthener without making that leap, we cannot accept this answer choice which is quite closely related to Assumption 1.

c) Just sa European manufacturerenjoy certain advantages in Europe, so do united States manufacturers in the United States.

Now, this answer choice does not convincingly state that the increase will be sufficient enough to cover up the decrease, but removes a possibility that if the increase in demand is significant, it wont be eaten up by the Eu Manufacturers. So, this answer choice does the job of defending the conclusion (not necessarily strengthening it because we dont know if the demand will significantly increase) from an attack which if proven true would lead to the conclusion being clearly weak.

So, C is the closest answer choice just because E cannot convincingly strengthen the argument without making a leap of evidences.

About how to approach this question:

1. Recognize what the underline is asking us to do.
a. Is it asking us assumption or extra evidence to support. OR
b. Is it asking us the Main Idea or the conclusion.

"since" is an indicator that it is asking for extra evidence.

2. Then prephrase the assumptions that establish the link between the premise/chain of premises and conclusion.
Assumption 1 can be directly found out. Assumption 2 seems a bit tough with that extra pressure on the exam.

3. Move onto the answer choices for Elimination and REMEMBER not just to read the answer choices but to CHECK whether the evidence presented is supporting the conclusion COMPLETELY without any leap of thoughts. This can be termed as IMPACT REASONING to be done on Strengthen/Weaken. Check what impact does the answer choice have on either the Conclusion or the Chain of Reasoning that leads to the conclusion.

A) some United States manufacturers have been substantially increasing their output over the last several years.

IMPACT REASONING: Ok..that is fine but over the last years, the manufacturers had Eu market but they dont have now. Will they still continue to maintain the output at a significant level when there is very less EU market and we dont know how much US Market will increase. (CONCLUSION). DOES NOT STRENGTHEN

B) the efficiency of solar-power generators in converting energy from the Sun into electric power is not improving as fast as it once did

IMPACT REASONING: Efficiency is not improving as fast. Nowhere mentioned in the argument and we do not now how it will impact the production levels. Basically, OUT OF SCOPE

d) European government are currently undertaking initiatives to stimulate the use of solar power within Europe

IMPACT REASONING: If this is true, Eu market will probably increase (we do not know whether this will succeed) and we are told that most of the market will be captured by Eu Manufacturers. So we dont know if the overall market increases how much of the increase in share will US manufacturers have and we also dont know how much increase in market will be caused by US initiatives and whether both of these are significant enough to maintain current production levels. DOES NOT STRENGTHEN.


e) the current market for solar-power generators in the United States is very limited.
IMPACT REASONING: As mentioned above, either of the ways are possible and it requires a leap to assume either of them. So, not GOOD. If an answer choice requires you to make a leap to make you reach the conclusion then the answer choice is incorrect for Assumption/Strengthen/Weaken Questions.

c) Just sa European manufacturerenjoy certain advantages in Europe, so do united States manufacturers in the United States.
IMPACT REASONING: Ohh, I did not think of the fact that if Eu Manufacturers have captured Eu Market, why cant they capture US Market. So, it is possible that along with Eu Market they take a large share of US Market and the production levels of US Manu might decrease. But, hey, this answer choice mentions that Eu market was captured by EU Manufacturers because of special home advantage. And US manu have the same advantage. So, if there is an increase in market, US manu will take a large portion of it. Atleast, the conclusion that production levels will be maintained is not challenged by Eu Manufacturers eating up the share. So this answer choice, if not completely but by eliminating one possibility increases the chances that the conclusion will work.
So this is my right answer.

thanks Nilesh. let us know if any of you have any further questions on this one..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor