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

 It is currently 24 Aug 2016, 19:10

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In response to studies showing that accidents involving

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 13
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [3] , given: 40

In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2012, 00:18
3
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:29) correct 50% (01:26) wrong based on 336 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

A) Most citizens of country X base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price.
B) It will prove impossible to fully implement the ban of kerosene, since a flourishing black market exists for the sale of banned goods in Country X.
C) Oil and natural gas will be responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.
D) Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.
E) The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 13
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2012, 10:11
prakash111687 wrote:
IMO E.

Prakash, can you please explain how you concluded E.

Because I just couldn't find any reason to eliminate A.
Intern
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Posts: 34
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2012, 10:46
I am not sure how "basing their decision" will have impact on the fuel price. Moreover this choice fails for negation test and "Most" & "strictly" are extreme words.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 913
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 531 [1] , given: 44

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2012, 10:49
1
KUDOS
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

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Current Student
Status: Prep Mode
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 163
Location: India
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 69

In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 11:53
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.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

a) Most citizens of country X base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price.
b) It will prove impossible to fully implement the ban of kerosene, since a flourishing black market exists for the sale of banned goods in Country X.
c) Oil and natural gas will be responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.
d) Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.
e) The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.

Last edited by Zarrolou on 06 Aug 2013, 12:00, edited 1 time in total.
Merging similar topics.
Current Student
Status: Prep Mode
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 163
Location: India
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 69

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 12:13
Conclusion: Ban on the sale of kerosene by Government regulators will have a negative effect on the disposable income of citizens of country.

Premise: Since the two alternative fuels, oil & natural gas, are both expensive than kerosene.

If we negate D:

Heating costs does not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

So, even though the two alternate fuels are expensive than kerosene,the heating costs does not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income. So, the ban will not have a negative effect as the fuel costs do not eats up much of the income of the citizens. The author's conclusion falls apart.

If we negate E:

The citizens of Country X will not continue to use heating fuels.

So, if the citizens will abandon the use of heating fuels, their disposable income remains intact.

I understand E wins over D, but the phrasing of choice D by using the word "very significant portion" disguised me.

Could anyone help to explain?
VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1123
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 173

Kudos [?]: 1793 [2] , given: 219

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 12:20
2
KUDOS
Gian wrote:
Conclusion: Ban on the sale of kerosene by Government regulators will have a negative effect on the disposable income of citizens of country.

Premise: Since the two alternative fuels, oil & natural gas, are both expensive than kerosene.

If we negate D:

Heating costs does not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

So, even though the two alternate fuels are expensive than kerosene,the heating costs does not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income. So, the ban will not have a negative effect as the fuel costs do not eats up much of the income of the citizens. The author's conclusion falls apart.

If we negate E:

The citizens of Country X will not continue to use heating fuels.

So, if the citizens will abandon the use of heating fuels, their disposable income remains intact.

I understand E wins over D, but the phrasing of choice D by using the word "very significant portion" disguised me.

Could anyone help to explain?

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.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

d) Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

D is not the assumption because the text says only that this fact will have a negative effect on the income: what does it mean?

This could be true if the negative effect is minimal or huge: it will always be a negative effect , we are not concerned with "how big".

So D-negated says that "Heating costs DO NOT absorb a very significant portion (...)", so this policy will have a minimal negative effect, but a negative effect nonetheless. The argument holds.

Hope I've explained myself well.
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 841
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 1114 [0], given: 197

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 16:44
Gian wrote:
Conclusion: Ban on the sale of kerosene by Government regulators will have a negative effect on the disposable income of citizens of country.

Premise: Since the two alternative fuels, oil & natural gas, are both expensive than kerosene.

If we negate D:

Heating costs does not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

So, even though the two alternate fuels are expensive than kerosene,the heating costs does not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income. So, the ban will not have a negative effect as the fuel costs do not eats up much of the income of the citizens. The author's conclusion falls apart.

If we negate E:

The citizens of Country X will not continue to use heating fuels.

So, if the citizens will abandon the use of heating fuels, their disposable income remains intact.

I understand E wins over D, but the phrasing of choice D by using the word "very significant portion" disguised me.

Could anyone help to explain?

IMO if you understand the CR well then you will be eliminate 3 options very easily and 2 options WILL always be tempting.

in this question:

Conclusion: Ban on the sale of kerosene by Government regulators will have a negative effecton the disposable income of citizens of country.

now you put option D below conclusion:
Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

if this is assumption this must QUALIFY 3 conditions:
1)must support the conclusion
2)should provide new information
3)must pass the negation test.

now clearly OPTION D supports ==>
as if heating cost absorb significant proportion then decision of government will effect badly
it also provides new information.

negation test:
Heating costs absorb average portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.
now you can see still the argument's conclusion holds.
hence this cant be ASSUMPTION.

takeaway:
apply negation test correctly to both of the tempting answer choices.

hope this helps
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 21:43
With respect, you guys have developed what seems to be a very ineffective method for determining the correct answer, or more precisely why an answer choice is incorrect. A, B, and C are clearly eliminated because they're all irrelevant, leaving only D and E as the correct answer choices.

The reason that D is not the correct answer is very simple. Based on the paragraph, there is no indication about the extent to which disposable income is negatively affected by the decision to ban the sale of kerosene. If we read D carefully, it says:

"Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X."

Answer choice D refers specifically to the extent of the affect on disposable income, claiming that a "very significant" portion of the disposable income is absorbed by heating costs. Based on the premises, we have no idea whether a significant portion, a moderate portion, or even an inconsequential portion of disposable income will be affected by the ban; all we know is that it will be affected by to some extent. D is wrong because it makes a claim that is not supported by passage.
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 22:04
rahulsukhija wrote:
prakash111687 wrote:
IMO E.

Prakash, can you please explain how you concluded E.

Because I just couldn't find any reason to eliminate A.

A is eliminated because it isn't a necessary assumption for the argument, and because it rests on an assumption unsupported by the passage.

Whether consumers base their purchasing decisions on price is irrelevant to the fact that when the lowest priced good is banned from the market, all consumers are forced to buy the higher priced alternative heating fuels, assuming they continue to buy fuel at all. If consumers continue to buy fuels, then their collective purchasing power will be reduced because at least some of the consumers (i.e. at least one person) that bought kerosene will now be forced to buy a higher priced alternative.*

The other reason that A is wrong is because it rests on an assumption that isn't supported by the passage. A states that:

"Most citizens of country X base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price"

But we really have no idea whether this was the primary reason - or even a reason at all - that kerosene was the preferred fuel. It might be the case that kerosene burns more evenly than the other fuels. Perhaps it burns more slowly, which means its a more convenient, long-lasting fuel. Ultimately, we cannot conclude why kerosene is preferable because the passage doesn't give us enough information. For that reason, A is out.

*except if that person decides not to purchase fuel at all. And that's why E has to be the correct answer. The implied assumption that consumers will continue to purchase fuel is necessary to conclude that their collective purchasing power will be reduced after kerosene is banned.

Last edited by andrewwellsmba on 06 Aug 2013, 22:10, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 841
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 1114 [0], given: 197

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 22:08
andrewwellsmba wrote:
With respect, you guys have developed what seems to be a very ineffective method for determining the correct answer, or more precisely why an answer choice is incorrect. A, B, and C are clearly eliminated because they're all irrelevant, leaving only D and E as the correct answer choices.

The reason that D is not the correct answer is very simple. Based on the paragraph, there is no indication about the extent to which disposable income is negatively affected by the decision to ban the sale of kerosene. If we read D carefully, it says:

"Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X."

Answer choice D refers specifically to the extent of the affect on disposable income, claiming that a "very significant" portion of the disposable income is absorbed by heating costs. Based on the premises, we have no idea whether a significant portion, a moderate portion, or even an inconsequential portion of disposable income will be affected by the ban; all we know is that it will be affected by to some extent. D is wrong because it makes a claim that is not supported by passage.

hi andrew,

as far as i know...assumptions are always new facts which is not supported by the argument rather it supports argument.
moreover as yu said that option D is not supported by the argument but in the same ways dont you think that option E is also not supported by the argument it says: The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.(it is nowhere stated that they are going to continue to use heating fuels)

_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 22:22
blueseas wrote:
andrewwellsmba wrote:
hi andrew,

as far as i know...assumptions are always new facts which is not supported by the argument rather it supports argument.
moreover as yu said that option D is not supported by the argument but in the same ways dont you think that option E is also not supported by the argument it says: The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.(it is nowhere stated that they are going to continue to use heating fuels)

The reason that E is the correct answer is because it is a necessary assumption, and is therefore valid. If it is the case that disposable income is reduced by the kerosene ban, then consumers must continue to buy heating fuel. The contrapositive of that statement is "if consumers do not continue to buy heating oil, then disposable income will not be reduced." In other words, for the argument to be valid, it MUST be the case that consumers will continue to buy heating oil. This isn't new information, it's a necessary assumption upon which the argument's conclusion relies.

The reason that D is not the correct answer is because it is not directly supported by the passage, and in fact is invalid on that basis. Answer choice D makes the claim that the kerosene ban will have a "significant" impact on disposable income. But ask yourself, is this necessarily the case? As I stated, it is possible that the kerosene ban has a marginal effect on disposable income. As a result, D is itself invalid. It doesn't have to be the case that the impact is significant. You can eliminate D on this basis, because any correct answer choice in CR must be valid based on the passage.

More importantly, D is not a necessary assumption upon which the passage hinges. It doesn't have to be the case that heating oil absorbs a significant portion of disposable income for the argument's conclusion to be valid. Remember, the conclusion is concerned only with the existence of a negative impact, not the degree of the impact. If you're able to understand sufficiency and necessity, and to recognize that D is not a necessary assumption in the way that E is a necessary assumption, then you have the mental faculties to go straight to E without first eliminating any of the other answer choices.

Last edited by andrewwellsmba on 06 Aug 2013, 22:34, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 841
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 1114 [0], given: 197

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 22:33
andrewwellsmba wrote:
blueseas wrote:
andrewwellsmba wrote:
hi andrew,

as far as i know...assumptions are always new facts which is not supported by the argument rather it supports argument.
moreover as yu said that option D is not supported by the argument but in the same ways dont you think that option E is also not supported by the argument it says: The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.(it is nowhere stated that they are going to continue to use heating fuels)

The reason that E is the correct answer is because it is a necessary assumption. If it is the case that disposable income is reduced by the kerosene ban, then consumers must continue to buy heating fuel. The contrapositive of that statement is "if consumers do not continue to buy heating oil, then disposable income will not be reduced." In other words, for the argument to be valid, it MUST be the case that consumers will continue to buy heating oil. This isn't new information, it's a necessary assumption upon which the argument's conclusion relies.

The reason that D is not the correct answer is because is not a necessary assumption, and is, on that basis, unsupported by the passage. Answer choice D makes the claim that the kerosene ban will have a "significant" impact on disposable income. But ask yourself, is this necessarily the case? As I stated, it is possible that the kerosene ban has a marginal effect on disposable income. As a result, D is itself invalid. It doesn't have to be the case that the impact is significant. You can eliminate D on this basis.

More importantly, D is not a necessary assumption upon which the passage hinges. It doesn't have to be the case that heating oil absorbs a significant portion of disposable income for the argument's conclusion to be valid. Remember, the conclusion is concerned only with the existence of a negative impact, not the degree of the impact. If you're able to understand sufficiency and necessity, and to recognize that D is not a necessary assumption in the way that E is a necessary assumption, then you have the mental faculties to go straight to E without first eliminating any of the other answer choices.

i agree with your thoughts but procedure above shown in order to come to assumption helps more to non natives such as myself.
moreover the above procedure which is stated is not generated by me that is made normally made by experts and we poor people follow their footsteps and manyatime we do mistakes also but thats not the end.
thats great you are coming to answer with your thought process and without any help of procedures.....and we (community) will be glad with any sort of contribution from your side

cheers
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [1] , given: 0

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2013, 22:38
1
KUDOS
blueseas wrote:
i agree with your thoughts but procedure above shown in order to come to assumption helps more to non natives such as myself.
moreover the above procedure which is stated is not generated by me that is made normally made by experts and we poor people follow their footsteps and manyatime we do mistakes also but thats not the end.
thats great you are coming to answer with your thought process and without any help of procedures.....and we (community) will be glad with any sort of contribution from your side

cheers

No problem. My only goal is to help. While the method you have employed might work, I think that it is easier (i.e. more effective/reliable) to simply consider what you are reading and to ask yourself, "does this have to be the case?" Clearly, it does not have to be the case that the kerosene ban has a significant negative impact on disposable income. If only 5 consumers out of 100 buy kerosene, the negative impact will be marginal, but the conclusion will still be satisfied; there was still a negative impact.

By contrast, if you apply the same "does this have to be the case?" test to E, you will see that in fact it must be the case that consumers continue to buy heating fuel. If the 5 consumers who previous bought kerosene now decide not to buy heating fuel, then disposable income will not be negatively impacted by the ban. The only way to make the conclusion that disposable income is negatively impacted valid is to assume that consumers continue to buy heating fuel (and that the 5 aforementioned consumers switch to one of the two more expensive alternatives, thus reducing their disposable income).

Tip: any question stem concerning an assumption is referring to a necessary assumption. All correct answers on the GMAT must be valid, so the only correct answer in any assumption question is a necessary assumption (meaning something that must be the case for the argument's conclusion to follow from its premises).
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2013
Posts: 93
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GPA: 3.62
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 37

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2014, 01:09
heating costs when people use Kerosene may not be a significant cost for the poeple of country X. Whereas if these poeple start using natural gases etc this cost might be very high and significant.

There is a subtle difference so generalizing that heating cost is significant (when using kerosene or natural gas) do not hold. So D is wrong. E is correct
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9173
Followers: 800

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2016, 09:08
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.
Re: In response to studies showing that accidents involving   [#permalink] 18 Mar 2016, 09:08
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Accidents involving drivers who do not wear seatbelts... 3 13 Jun 2016, 09:11
In response to studies showing that accidents involving 0 06 Aug 2013, 11:53
1 In response to an upswing in traffic accidents and parking 2 02 Sep 2012, 22:26
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a 13 03 Jul 2008, 10:59
In most accidents involving bicycle riders, they get 12 26 Sep 2006, 04:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by