Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Nov 2014, 17:27

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 326
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 299 [1] , given: 20

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot [#permalink] New post 24 May 2010, 19:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

13% (02:00) correct 88% (01:56) wrong based on 19 sessions
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer.But no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger.So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.
(B)The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt heathly lifestyles.
(C)The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
(D)The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities
(E)The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.
_________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

Download the Ultimate SC Flashcards

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 80
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 37 [1] , given: 11

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 24 May 2010, 21:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
premise 1 - living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer
premise 2 - but no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger

conclusion - so by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles

option A - not relevant to the argument.the use of taxes to fund education is beyond the scope of the argument
option B - not relevant to the argument it doesn't hint anything about avoiding dangerous activities and adopting healthy lifestyles.
option C - the conclusion states the government should not levy analogous special taxes on x, y, z..etc this negates the conclusion. Correct
option D - the conlcusion doesn't mention about race cars or climbing mountains it enlists rather specific activities viz.hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles
option E - again irrelevant to the argument.

hence option C. I think the fact that many of the options seem vague makes this CR very confusing. Guess sometimes things which are "not related" also fall under the cateogry of "logically inconsistent"
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 75
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 1

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 25 May 2010, 13:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
sh00nya wrote:
premise 1 - living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer
premise 2 - but no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger

conclusion - so by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles

option A - not relevant to the argument.the use of taxes to fund education is beyond the scope of the argument
option B - not relevant to the argument it doesn't hint anything about avoiding dangerous activities and adopting healthy lifestyles.
option C - the conclusion states the government should not levy analogous special taxes on x, y, z..etc this negates the conclusion. Correct
option D - the conlcusion doesn't mention about race cars or climbing mountains it enlists rather specific activities viz.hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles
option E - again irrelevant to the argument.

hence option C. I think the fact that many of the options seem vague makes this CR very confusing. Guess sometimes things which are "not related" also fall under the cateogry of "logically inconsistent"



+1 for C.

Same explanation as above.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1560
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 6

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 27 May 2010, 11:42
I picked (C) but this is a very weird CR....what is the source of the CR?
1 KUDOS received
BSchool Thread Master
avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 401
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 129 [1] , given: 76

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 28 May 2010, 11:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
dimitri92 wrote:
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer.But no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger.So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.
(B)The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt heathly lifestyles.
(C)The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
(D)The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities
(E)The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.


Option C is the only answer choice different in logic to the argument.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 13

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2010, 23:52
bumping this one up...my head spun reading the choices....i picked the correct one but had spent a good 3.5 mins. I realized it's simple - but one has to understand the trick perhaps...
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 171
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 1

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 14 Jul 2010, 02:21
somehow picked up c . but a eird question indeed.
_________________


R E S P E C T


Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 3

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 15 Jul 2010, 01:04
jn.mohit wrote:
sh00nya wrote:
premise 1 - living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer
premise 2 - but no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger

conclusion - so by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles

option A - not relevant to the argument.the use of taxes to fund education is beyond the scope of the argument
option B - not relevant to the argument it doesn't hint anything about avoiding dangerous activities and adopting healthy lifestyles.
option C - the conclusion states the government should not levy analogous special taxes on x, y, z..etc this negates the conclusion. Correct
option D - the conlcusion doesn't mention about race cars or climbing mountains it enlists rather specific activities viz.hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles
option E - again irrelevant to the argument.

hence option C. I think the fact that many of the options seem vague makes this CR very confusing. Guess sometimes things which are "not related" also fall under the cateogry of "logically inconsistent"



+1 for C.

IMO C
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2462
Followers: 329

Kudos [?]: 2766 [0], given: 704

Re: Living with parrot [#permalink] New post 02 Sep 2011, 08:39
Expert's post
Re: Living with parrot   [#permalink] 02 Sep 2011, 08:39
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Some varieties of parrots live as long as the age of one aja1991 1 04 Aug 2014, 23:05
A recent study demonstrated that parents living with ykaiim 3 01 May 2010, 00:35
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic A recent study demonstrated that parents living with nitya34 20 10 Mar 2009, 21:14
Several recent studies suggest that a child born into a giddi77 11 26 Jan 2006, 20:42
Several recent studies suggest that a child born into a sgrover 10 15 Sep 2005, 22:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.