A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax credit to

Can some one please explain why E is incorrect?

My way of thinking is the following -
I think that the question is actually an assumption type.
We have the conclusion - Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes.

In assumption type of questions we need to find either contender or defender
Lets negate answ choice D -
Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower.
In this case the argument falls apart. I mean if the tax credit is not a reason of low sales, then the conclusion is erroneous

thats why D is ok

I did not follow the explanation provided. Can someone break it down please?

Let's try -



30% Tax credit for purchase of new House --------> Stimulating demand for new House ----> Creation of contract jobs.
|------------------------(A)------------------------------->-------------------(B)----------------------->-----------(C)----------------|



30% Tax credit for purchase of new House <--------- Demand for new House dropped
|------------------------(~A)---------------------------<-------------------(~B)----------------|


Check the negation logic used in the stimulus ( as depicted above) , hope this helps...

I chose option (D), but just had a question: this is an inference question, right?
From question stems, I think this is an inference question. But when looking at above comments, I saw many ppl say this is an assumption question. Could anyone shed some light?

Hello expert, could you please explain why option 'e' is wrong?

The question asks, "Which of the following must be true if the above conclusion is to be properly drawn?" The conclusion is that the tax credit has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes. It doesn't matter whether tax credits are usually ineffective. If, on the other hand, tax credits are usually effective but do not influence consumers to purchase homes, the conclusion can still be properly drawn.

But conclusion says: Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes. So, presence or absence of the law doesn't matter. Then why absence of the law would yield positive result i.e sales wouldn't drop significantly? According to D presence or absence of the law DOES matter that presence of the law generates negative consequence. What I am missing here? GMATNinja, your help would be much appreciated.

GMATninja can you please help how to eliminate E?

Only option D 'Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower' eliminates the weakness (the alternate explanation for the decrease in sales) in the argument and thus it must be true in order to draw the conclusion that 'law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes'.

We don't care about what tax credits USUALLY do to consumers. We only care about whether this tax credit helped or hurt new home sales.

Even if tax credits are usually effective, the author would claim that they were not effective in this case, citing the decline in growth. The author's argument does not rely on (E), so it can be eliminated.


We are told that "since the law was passed, the growth in sales of newly constructed homes has dropped each year, from 15% to 10% to 5%." According to the author, this is evidence that "the law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes."

Now imagine if the law had not been passed. In that case, what if growth in sales of new homes was significantly lower? What if growth, in that case, went from 15% to 5% to 1%? Maybe without the law, sales of newly constructed homes would have even DECREASED (i.e. 15% to 0% to -15%).

Even though growth decreased each year, the law may have prevented new home sales from plummeting. If (D) were not true, then new house sales would have been significantly lower without the law, and the numbers would have been much worse than 15%-10%-5%. That would imply that the law DID have a significant effect.

This is a Cause and Effect case
The argument says "law" is not the cause for the effect "drop in sale of newly constructed homes"

So if we can further provides support for this relation, that will the answer.


This means even if the "law" was not there, the effect "drop in sales" would have been still there.

because it picks up an instance and generalizes it, which is not acceptable

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

For a conclusion to be properly drawn from the evidence, the author's assumption must be true. Thus, this is an Assumption question.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

The conclusion comes after the keyword, “obviously.” The author believes the law has had little or no effect on sales of newly constructed homes. The author's evidence is that since the law was passed three years ago, sales of such homes has dropped each year.

Step 3: Predict the Answer

A conclusion that states that X has had no effect on Y assumes that Y would have been the same without X. Here, the author is assuming that the sales figures would have been the same had the law not been passed. The sales figures would not have been higher, nor would they have been even lower.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices

(D) matches the prediction. The author must be assuming that without the credit, sales would not have been even significantly lower than they actually were. If they would have been lower, then the credit did have an effect on the sales of the homes. Thus, (D) is correct.

(A) doesn't have to be true for the conclusion to follow from the evidence. The argument is about the connection between the sales figures and whether the law has had an effect on new homes sales. (A) has nothing to do with that connection.

(B) is wrong because the argument is about what effect the law has already had. What will happen next year is irrelevant.

(C) goes against the author's reasoning, implying that the tax credit does indeed affect sales of new homes.

(E) is wrong because the author doesn't have to assume anything at all about purchases in general, and what effect tax credits “usually” have. The author is only concerned with new homes in Rockville and the law passed there.

TAKEAWAY: Be very clear on the evidence and conclusion of the argument, and stick to the connection between them. Irrelevant choices are quite common, and can be easily spotted by having a good paraphrase of the argument.

A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax credit to consumers who purchase a newly constructed home. The tax credit was intended to stimulate the local economy by creating a higher demand for new houses and spurring the creation of jobs in construction and design. However, since the law was passed, the growth in sales of newly constructed homes has dropped each year, from 15% to 10% to 5%. Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes.

Which of the following must be true if the above conclusion is to be properly drawn?

Question is pointing to assumption question

Conclusion: law of tax credit does not have any effect on the sales of constructed houses
Pre thinking: Below is necessary to assume for conclusion to hold
1. if law is not passed, there wont be any spur in construction of houses
2. passing a law is only way to increase the sale

lets have a look at answer choice and do POE


A. New house sales are directly tied to personal income. -irreevant

B. New house sales cannot increase by more than 6% next year.-irrelevant

C. If the tax credit had been 50%, there would have been a larger increase in new house sales
-irrelevant, going too far from conclusion
D. Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower.
- matching our pre thinking, negate it, conclusion will break
E. Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases.
-specific purchases, wrong

So OA:D

VKat @warrierguy

E says: Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases.

The first issue is the use of usually - this means may or may not we cannot be sure

The second issue is it doesn't anywhere mention tax credit for newly constructed houses? it only mentions for specific purchases? what are these purchases? We dont know.. hence out.

--

+1 kudos if this post helped!

First - Must be true is an inference question not an assumption question so there is no negating business to be done here

Next - Clear Elimination candidates are D and E

Given its an inference question something has to support the conclusion that
this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes.
The law pertains to tax credit

D. Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower. (this actually weakens the conclusion and says that the tax credit has some kind of effect on the sales - do it anyway - negate - don't negate and try to make sense of the double negative etc. ) - Eliminate D on final check

E. Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases. Keep E
(This is unstated - thus inference step 1 check. yes does not mention house sales and could suggest that it is too broad or off topic - but this is correct answer in this case)