Free Practice Question
CR · Critical Reasoning
655-705
Complete the Passage
A writer argues that the government should not intervene in struggling private companies because it lacks the expertise to run them effectively. However, the government would only need to appoint the leadership team rather than handle daily operations. Just as politicians, who may not be experts in military strategy, appoint high-ranking military leaders responsible for national defense, they could similarly appoint competent management for a bank. The writer's argument, if valid, suggests a reason to reject which of the following?
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowA
A. Leading a military unit requires more expertise than managing a bank.
B. Politicians are effective in selecting military leaders for national defense.
Correct
C
C. Politicians cannot effectively manage the daily operations of a bank.
D
D. Government-owned banks cannot be managed effectively.
E
E. The government should not intervene in private companies that are financially stable.
See the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Explanation
Preview
Official Explanation
Official
The writer's argument suggests that while politicians may not have direct experience in military operations, they are still capable of appointing qualified leaders for the military. This implies that the government could similarly appoint qualified management for banks without needing to run them directly. Therefore, the…
Read the full explanation
Sign in for free to see the complete step-by-step solution to this question.
Comments
4
Sign in to join the discussion
S
SameerMay 1, 2025
Can someone explain it other way?
P
PrabhaankApr 13, 2025
appreciated!
A
AdityaFeb 1, 2025
Great
D
DhanushMar 12, 2024
Greatt
What this question tests
What it tests
Whether you can complete the last sentence of an argument in a way that is logically consistent with it.
Common trap
Choosing an option that sounds plausible but contradicts the argument or introduces new information.
Details
Difficulty
655-705
Type
CR