|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Boston
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[1] , given: 0
|
In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco [#permalink]
 16 Oct 2006, 20:49
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
85% (02:13) correct
14% (01:47) wrong based on 4 sessions
In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania’s annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. All health care in Gandania is government-funded.
B. Implementing the proposed laws is not likely to cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.
C. The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.
D. Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.
E. No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use.
_________________
1st 600, 2nd 680, 3rd 760 ? =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 718
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
I'm for A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 140
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Yeah..A is the only relevant choice.
_________________
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 386
Location: TX
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
A is the only one which makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 122
Location: Florida, Argentina, UK
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
By spending less on health care, the gov. will cut an important source of debt in the LR. Therefore, A would weaken the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
A is close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 1003
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 5
|
Any opinions on this guys?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 201
Schools: Stanford...Wait, I will come!!!
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 3
|
winskc wrote: In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania’s annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. All health care in Gandania is government-funded.
B. Implementing the proposed laws is not likely to cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.
C. The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.
D. Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.
E. No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use. Only A & B are in contention. But it does not specify if what percentage of the tobacco..does the govt exports.. if it exports all, then, it also weakens. But again..A is far more stronger choice for B to let in.  I will go for A, what is OA.. ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 0
|
why not D?
(A) if all health care is government funded, govt ends up losing money and since it has a monoply on tobacco sales, it will have reason for enforcing the laws.
(B)doesnt give me another reason for not enforcing the laws.
(C)niether strengthens nor weakens.
(D)if tobacco is the main source of revenue, the govt will certainly think twice before enforcing the laws.gives another reason for thus not enforcing.
(E) irrelevant.
i think the main point here is that government has a monopoly on tobacco sales
OA pls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 60
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with D
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1442
Followers: 28
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 1
|
can't be D.
Conclusion is G cannot afford to institute the proposed laws that curtail the use of tobacco.
We need some thing that says G can afford to or have to afford.
Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government, but still those profits make up only 10% of the revenues and the remaining 90% is untouched. Also it does not say how much will profits go down by to make such decision.
But with A, all HC funded by govt, govt can eliminate health costs and improve public health at the expense of profits from tobacco.
hence A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 1003
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 5
|
The OA is B. Now, I just need an explanation of Y
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1442
Followers: 28
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 1
|
bigfernhead wrote: The OA is B. Now, I just need an explanation of Y Typo?? I dont know how B can be a possibility. If at all , it does strengthen it by saying that exports will not rise and revenues lost at home will not be made some where else. So G cannot afford to have cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 0
|
Where do these questions with the strange OA's come from? icandy is correct: B (if it is relevant at all) would strengthen the argument, not weaken it. The correct answer is A. As for D, the fact that profits from tobacco are the single greatest source of revenue tells us nothing at all about how much those profits would decline because of the laws, nor about how much could or could not be replaced by other revenue sources. If anything, D might weaken the argument by showing that the WORST possible outcome would be to lose a maximum of 10% of revenues.
_________________
Grumpy
Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSchool Thread Master
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 11
|
bigfernhead wrote: The OA is B. Now, I just need an explanation of Y The OA is A. Confirmed . Best, Ankit
_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
