|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
180
[1] , given: 19
|
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot [#permalink]
 24 May 2010, 20:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
13% (02:00) correct
86% (01:51) wrong based on 0 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 79
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
21
[1] , given: 11
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
24 May 2010, 22:22
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"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 75
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
25 May 2010, 14:30
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
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1570
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
121
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
27 May 2010, 12:42
I picked (C) but this is a very weird CR....what is the source of the CR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSchool Thread Master
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 403
Followers: 18
Kudos [?]:
101
[1] , given: 76
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
28 May 2010, 12:30
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
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
14 Jul 2010, 00:52
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
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
14 Jul 2010, 03:21
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
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
15 Jul 2010, 02:04
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1747
Followers: 56
Kudos [?]:
579
[0], given: 467
|
Re: Living with parrot [#permalink]
02 Sep 2011, 09:39
I do not understand what kind of question is this ?? really.........should be somthing that support the conclusion and ONE should be irrilevant or weaken the same conclusion.. mah............ 
_________________
KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Living with parrot
[#permalink]
02 Sep 2011, 09:39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
