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

 It is currently 29 Nov 2015, 15:14

### 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:
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 554
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 2

Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  18 Feb 2009, 19:17
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:29) correct 39% (01:26) wrong based on 252 sessions
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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2492
Followers: 64

Kudos [?]: 617 [0], given: 19

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  18 Feb 2009, 22:00
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.

D. If govt's attempts to sell the helium will depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent, it is not worthwhile to store and sell the hellium..
_________________
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 65
Followers: 0

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

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  19 Feb 2009, 02:07
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$. So i guess option A is the only one that holds, cos a proposition to sell the helium is made iff the govt has no current need for it. Director Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 648 Followers: 9 Kudos [?]: 311 [0], given: 6 Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink] 19 Feb 2009, 03:14 Selling the Helium is only way to reduce the debt burden because “current market price” supports it. What will happen if D comes true? “Current market price” will fall and government will no more capable of reducing overall debt. IMO D _________________ If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space Manager Joined: 30 May 2009 Posts: 81 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 2 Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink] 04 Jun 2009, 10:05 aielman wrote: I would go with option A. Option D, though appealing has a fundamental mathematical pitfall. Lets say the buy price of the Govt is 100$ 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 argument says that the govt can the stockpile, thus the argument itself signifies that der s a stockpile, which means its der for emergency n no current need is der. so option A is wrong.

IMO D.as d negation of dis statement wud make the lawmakes argument to fail.

E is wrong, i guess, coz ders nothing mentioned in the argument abt the facility costs.

Please correct if m wrong nywhr.
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 297
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  21 Feb 2010, 14:17
IMHO A.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 366
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 22

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  21 Feb 2010, 15:32
A is simple and straight-forward. What is wrong with it? Why can't it be the correct answer?
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

Intern
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

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

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  22 Feb 2010, 09:21
D ..
Intern
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 1

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  22 Feb 2010, 10:08
IMO - D: Since author implicitly states that selling the helium would cover the cost of acquiring and storing it plus 25% - this option would render the argument invalid.
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 6

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  22 Feb 2010, 10:57
The answer should be D I guess....

B, C and E can be eliminated easily.
A doesn't stand out because its not necessarily a correct assumption i.e the government requiring or not requiring the helium shouldn't matter, since raising taxes is what the lawmaker is trying to avoid
What is the OA??
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 69

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  23 Feb 2010, 03:11
BarneyStinson wrote:
A is simple and straight-forward. What is wrong with it? Why can't it be the correct answer?

Main conclusion of the argument says that helium can be sold to pay off the government debt (well some part of it).

Let's assume that government does in fact have some urgent need of helium. Does this fact change anything? You can still sell the helium and pay off the debt (as long as market price are high enough). The conclusion still holds.

The crucial assumption argument depends on concerns market prices. If prices decrease by more than 25%, there will be no more money left to pay off public debt.

So IMO it should be (D)
Intern
Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

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

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  23 Feb 2010, 07:26
IMO D. What is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 200
Concentration: Strategy, Economics
GMAT Date: 07-17-2015
GPA: 3.57
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 18

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  23 Feb 2010, 07:33
A was tempting at first but then I realized no one really cares whether or not the government even needs helium! So I'll go with D.
_________________

Life with the GMAT:

Jerome: Ben, c'est 20 secondes de plus qu'hier sur le meme parcours! C'etait bien le meme parcours la, non?!
Gigi: Mais t'enerve pas, Jerome, je crois que t'as accroche une porte.
Jerome: *\$&#(*%&(*#%&

Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  10 Jul 2010, 06:07
remember that the option A says... "No current"...need. Maybe after sometime the helium price can either crash or rise so argument will either be weakened or strengthened .
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 13

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  10 Jul 2010, 06:31
Pls let us know the OA. I think its an exceptionally wicked question. D certainly seems right - but looking closely - D actually says - Government's attempts to sell helium will not weaken the market - what does market mean? So long as the Govt is able to make a profit (at the current elevated prices) - the Govt can proceed with its plan. So I am not sure if this ambiguity has been deliberately built or we can safely assume - that MARKET means Helium as well.
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 13

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  10 Jul 2010, 06:49
nverma wrote:
IMHO A.

can u explain?
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 442
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 112

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  10 Jul 2010, 07:28
Slightly different .... I choose B
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 481
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 10

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  10 Jul 2010, 11:27
+1 D

_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

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

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  10 Jul 2010, 13:31
I believe its D i almost picked A but it is irrelevant

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. (having or not having a need for helium is irrelevant since you can still reduce the debt even if you have a need for helium).
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market
Price of helium by more than 25 percent. (prompt states that from the sell : Revenue-Total cost=25% premium which is used to offset the debt. HOWEVER, if selling the helium would lower the total revenue then the argument will not hold)
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 3

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink]  11 Jul 2010, 22:33
D
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing   [#permalink] 11 Jul 2010, 22:33

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 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