In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heaters were responsible for a significant number of fatalities, government regulators in Country X have banned the sale of kerosene. This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since oil and natural gas, the two available alternative heating fuels, are more expensive than kerosene.
Summary of conclusion: The income of X's citizens will be affected negatively by the banning of Kerosene
I will use the NEGATIVE technique as the solution for this argument.
A) Most citizens of country X DO NOT base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price.=> does not affect to the conclusion
B) It will prove POSSIBLE to fully implement the ban of kerosene, since a flourishing black market exists for the sale of banned goods in Country X
=> Whether the black-market makes the prices of kerosene increase or not is still unsured C) Oil and natural gas will be NOT responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.
=> out of scope D) Heating costs absorb NOT a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.
=> Irrelevant to disposable key word E) The citizens of Country X will NOT continue to use heating fuels
=> The cost of alternative heating fuels does not affect the income of X's citizens
_________________
Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you