- Fri May 13, 2016 11:27 pm
#24631
Hi Annie,
You are quite right to suggest that “owned by” doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as “taken over by,” and it is an excellent sign that you are scrutinizing language so closely!
But notice, however, that in order to agree that answer choice (D) describes something that cannot be true if the facts asserted in the stimulus are true, you don’t actually need to believe that owning and taking over are the same actions. The columnist tells us that some people think that the government shouldn’t take over private banks because it can’t manage financial institutions. But the columnist then points out that the government wouldn’t actually need to manage the banks itself, but simply to appoint the right management people.
If this is true—which we must take it to be, since this is a Cannot Be True question where we accept the stimulus as true and use it to prove one of the answer choices impossible—then it should be possible for a bank taken over by the government to be well managed, regardless of whether the government itself could manage a bank. If we know that this is even a possibility, then we also know that it would be false to say that banks taken over by the government cannot be well managed.
When answer choice (D) changes taking over to owning, it is still describing something that we can know is false. If a bank that has been taken over by the government could be well managed by appointing the right people, than we can also infer that a bank that the government actually owns could also be well managed in the same way. As long as there is a possibility that a government-run bank could be well managed (whether it is owned by the government or simply taken over), it becomes necessarily false to say that such a bank cannot be well run.
I hope this clarifies things!
Laura