Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Re: CR-Abolish taxes [#permalink]
07 Jan 2011, 06:35
I went with E.
The premise states that public employees salaries are funded with taxes (other possibilities like debt are slashed away).
However, public employees may have sources of rent (different from income) which may be taxable, converting them into real tax payers.
The problem with this is that you are assuming and utilizing your knowledge to introduce new concepts to the statements, one should always get back and only use what the question provides, if you use all of our knowledge in logic proofs like this we will made them just un-proof-able, and what is correctly concluded through logic for you will be different for any other human being that didn't knew this fact or any other you just included, that is why one should stay back to use general or personal knowledge to include as inputs to the logic proof and only use what the statements settle, that way you will assure there is only one correct answer
Re: CR-Abolish taxes [#permalink]
07 Jan 2011, 13:24
Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.
Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?
(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise. (B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes. (C) Public employees are not real taxpayers. (D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes. (E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid.
E is very close but the question is very tricky, so take into account this:
It is true that E can be logically derived from the second statement. The issue here is that the question is asking for a logical conclusion that depends on both statements. E only depends on the second statement and the first does not provide any informations relevant to conclude E
C on the other hand is a conclusion that depends on both statements:
(Please excuse my english, these are not formal logic procedures but they provide a general idea) Lets suppose real tax payers are public employees Supposition: x is a real tax payer <-> x is a public employee Taxes are abolished -> y is a real tax payer ^ y has its disposable income increased Taxes are abolished -> z is a public employee ^ z has its income dessapear Lets take the person A, A is a real tax payer Taxes are abolished then: A is a real tax payer ^ A has its disposable income increased A is a public employee ^ A has its disposable income increased But also A is a public employee ^ A has its income dessapear So A has its disposable income increased ^ A has its income dessapear
Since we reached a contradiction we conclude that real tax payers cannot be public employees since disposable income cannot increase if the income dissapears.
We reach a contradiction that depend on both statements to proof. Answer E is also right, but it is not what the question is asking, be careful with tricky questions.
hey , i didn't get anything from your explanation and its difficult to understand .
but i can say that i am with E. _________________
kudos me if you like my post.
Attitude determine everything. all the best and God bless you.
Re: Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their [#permalink]
24 Jan 2014, 06:53
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.