Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Columnist: Some people argue that the governm...

Join the Discussion on the App

Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a bank's day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the bank's senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.

The columnist's statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?

a)
Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.
b)
Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.
c)
Politicians are not capable of managing a bank's day-to-day operations.
d)
Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.
e)
The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Complete the Passage

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over ...

Here's an explanation of each option:

(A) Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.

The columnist's argument does not directly address or compare the knowledge requirements of commanding a military branch and running a bank. It focuses on the government's ability to select senior management for a bank, not their knowledge of the banking industry. Therefore, this option is not addressed by the columnist's statements.

(B) Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.

The columnist's argument makes a comparison between politicians appointing top military officials and politicians selecting senior management for a bank. The columnist argues that politicians, despite not being military professionals, have successfully appointed military officials who are entrusted with defending the country. Therefore, the columnist's statements support the idea that politicians can do an adequate job of appointing top military officials.

(C) Politicians are not capable of managing a bank's day-to-day operations.

The columnist's argument explicitly states that the government would not need to manage a bank's day-to-day operations if it takes over a failing private-sector bank. Instead, the government would only need to select the bank's senior management. Therefore, the columnist's statements do not support the idea that politicians are not capable of managing a bank's day-to-day operations.

(D) Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.

The columnist's argument suggests that the government's lack of expertise in managing financial institutions should not prevent them from taking over failing private-sector banks. They argue that the government would primarily focus on selecting the bank's senior management rather than directly managing its operations. Therefore, the columnist's statements provide a reason to reject the idea that banks owned by the government cannot be well managed.

(E) The government should not take over private-sector banks that are financially sound.

The columnist's argument does not address the issue of financially sound private-sector banks. Their statements focus on failing private-sector banks and argue that the government's lack of knowledge in managing financial institutions should not prevent them from taking over. Therefore, the columnist's statements do not provide a reason to reject the idea of the government taking over financially sound private-sector banks.

Therefore, the correct answer is (D) Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.

Answered by Talent Skill Learning · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: Complete the Passage
10 Ques | 20 Min

Start Free Test

View all free GMAT tests

Community Answer

Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over ...

Understanding the Argument
The columnist argues against the idea that the government should refrain from taking over failing private-sector banks due to a lack of expertise in managing financial institutions. Instead, the government would only need to appoint senior management, similar to how politicians appoint military officials without being military experts themselves.
Analyzing the Options
The question asks which statement could be rejected based on the columnist's argument. Let's analyze the options:
Option A: Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.
- This is not directly addressed by the columnist and does not relate to the rejection.
Option B: Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.
- This is more of a supporting statement for the columnist's argument rather than something to reject.
Option C: Politicians are not capable of managing a bank's day-to-day operations.
- This statement isn't rejected by the columnist, as they focus on appointing senior management, not managing daily operations.
Option D: Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.
- This option can be rejected because the columnist suggests that government oversight through appointed management can still lead to effective bank management.
Option E: The government should not take over private-sector banks that are financially sound.
- This option does not directly relate to the argument presented.
Conclusion
The correct answer is option D. The columnist implies that government ownership, through effective management appointments, can lead to successful bank operations, countering the notion that they cannot be well managed. Thus, option D is the statement that can be rejected based on the columnist's argument.

Share via Whatsapp

Attention GMAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2024

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.The author suggests which of the following is the most appropriate conclusion of an analysis of the ethics of SWIFTs decision?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Inferring from the passage, which of the following constituted an ethical justification for SWIFT complying with the government?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.The author implies that which of the following most likely occurred as a result of the news stories that ran in June 2006

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that

View answer

Top Courses for GMATView all

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2024

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

100 RCs for GMAT

Top Courses for GMAT

View all

Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the government does not know how to manage financial institutions. However, rather than managing a banks day-to-day operations, the government would just need to select the banks senior management. Most politicians have never been military professionals, yet they appoint the top military officials entrusted with defending the country at least as great a responsibility as managing a bank.The columnists statements, if true, provide a reason for rejecting which one of the following?a)Commanding a branch of the military requires greater knowledge than running a bank does.b)Politicians do an adequate job of appointing the top military officials entrusted with defending the country.c)Politicians are not capable of managing a banks day-to-day operations.d)Banks that are owned by the government cannot be well managed.e)The government should not take over private- sector banks that are financially sound.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.

Explore Courses for GMAT exam