Final answer:
The statement is true. In the context of a Clayton Act challenge, a narrowly defined market makes it easier for the plaintiff to demonstrate probable anti-competitive effects as it suggests higher market concentration.
Step-by-step explanation:
True or False: In a Clayton Act based challenge to a merger, the court's adoption of a narrow relevant market definition will generally make it easier for the plaintiff to prove probable anti-competitive effect than if the court had adopted a broad relevant market definition.
The statement is true. When a court adopts a narrow definition of the relevant market in the context of a merger challenge under the Clayton Act, it generally simplifies the task for the plaintiff to demonstrate a probable anti-competitive effect. A narrowly defined market typically suggests higher levels of concentration, which can be indicative of a reduced level of competition. For instance, if only a specific type of software in a large technology sector is considered, the influence of a dominant player in that narrow market could be substantial, potentially leading to antitrust concerns. Conversely, a broader market definition might encompass more competitors and therefore suggest a lower level of market concentration, making it more challenging to establish that the merger would have anti-competitive effects.