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

 It is currently 14 Feb 2016, 13:08

### 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

# Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing

Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Posts: 196
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 11

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  12 Jul 2010, 01:35
Should be D.

I dont see any use in assuming A.

Argument says says. govt can sell the helium and clear its debt..irrespective of whether govt needs it or not.

But what if the price fall when govt tries to sell, this clearly weakens the argument. And we need this assumption to defend the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Posts: 230
Location: India
WE 1: 3.75 IT
WE 2: 1.0 IT
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 5

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  12 Jul 2010, 01:44
What is OA??
_________________

Cheers,
Varun

If you like my post, give me KUDOS!!

Manager
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 69
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 4

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  12 Jul 2010, 04:56
i feel the answer is b.. This is the assumption if not taken will fail the conclusion of the total debt part. I may be wrong though
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 171
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 1

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  13 Jul 2010, 06:04
D . Well if govt is not using it then better it sells it off and invests the money or fill balloons with the gas.

Its not about the need here as said in A.

Plz tell OA, if it exists
_________________

R E S P E C T

Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 90
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 2

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  13 Jul 2010, 10:49
after negating B, argument falls apart . So, B
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amar
http://amarnaik.wordpress.com

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 6593
Followers: 641

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 0

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  04 Nov 2015, 10:18
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.
Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 82
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 48

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  24 Nov 2015, 17:41
aielman wrote:
I would go with option A.

Option D, though appealing has a fundamental mathematical pitfall.

Lets say the buy price of the Govt is 100$for 10 units therefore the total cost of accruing the helium is 1000$, now the current market price is 125$for each unit. Now 24% of 125$ would be 30$. If the market value of helium decreases even by 24%, the net selling price of one unit of helium would be 95$. If the government sells 9 units of helium at this price and 1 unit at 125$, the total amount it would gain is 95*9 + 125*1 = 980$ (this is the worst case scenario).
Still running a debt of 20\$.

So i guess option A is the only one that holds, cos a proposition to sell the helium is made iff the govt has no current need for it.

The math is good. But, the argument depends on the fact that government ought to sell the He at market price only. So, the 1 unit 125 is not possible. It has to sell all units at 95 only. Anyways, A was close for me too. If govt. has no current need, it might sell He. If it has need, it won't sell He. But, A doesn't address the money thing, while D does.
Intern
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 34
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 5

Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  09 Dec 2015, 10:30
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

My answer is D without any doubt. Just understand that, say 100 dollar tor acquiring the stock and 25 dollar gain for market price favour. The last part 25dollar, which is a gain, can help reduce debt overall. Assumption answer anyhow tries to help to remove any inconsitency between conclusion and premises. Here, seems no such inconsitency, nor any any new things in the conclusion without the help or touch of premises. So, it might seem no way to help the conclusion to fill up a gap, since no gap available. Still, you have an opportunity to help. How? Think ..how can you give money to a guy who is too rich to get your help! still, you can help him, even without paying a dollar! This is through defending other possibilities of his expenses , for example, you can do something that will reduce his at least one way of expenses (it is like, saving a dollar from lost is like earning a new dollar).This is called defender rule!
This defender rule needs to be applied here, since no obvious gap is evident. Such rule has often a signature to recognize easily..which is..using 'not' in order to cancel out one possibility of attack.Answer D is a classic example.
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing   [#permalink] 09 Dec 2015, 10:30

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so 3 16 Feb 2010, 07:57
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing 6 28 Apr 2008, 12:40
1 A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion 4 23 Feb 2008, 08:17
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing 4 29 Sep 2007, 22:06
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is the the only means of reducing 12 05 Aug 2006, 07:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by