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

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 01:41

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 2

Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2009, 19:17
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

58% (01:51) correct 42% (01:06) wrong based on 18 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.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2500
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 512 [0], given: 19

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 18 Feb 2009, 22:00
reply2spg wrote:
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..
_________________

Verbal: new-to-the-verbal-forum-please-read-this-first-77546.html
Math: new-to-the-math-forum-please-read-this-first-77764.html
Gmat: everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html


GT

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 64
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 652
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 81
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 298
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 21 Feb 2010, 14:17
IMHO A.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 367
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 22

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 22 Feb 2010, 09:21
D ..
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 59
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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??
Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 69

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 23 Feb 2010, 07:26
IMO D. What is the OA?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 195
Concentration: Strategy, Economics
Schools: Insead Sept '16
GMAT Date: 09-30-2014
GPA: 3.57
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 17

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 35
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 10 Jul 2010, 06:49
nverma wrote:
IMHO A.

can u explain?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 443
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 112

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 10 Jul 2010, 07:28
Slightly different .... I choose B
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 459
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 5

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 10 Jul 2010, 11:27
+1 D

Please post OA
_________________

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

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

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

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

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 3

Re: CR: Lawmaker [#permalink] New post 11 Jul 2010, 22:33
D
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Re: CR: Lawmaker   [#permalink] 11 Jul 2010, 22:33
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing mymba99 6 28 Apr 2008, 12:40
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing singh_amit19 4 29 Sep 2007, 22:06
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is the the only means of reducing imaru 12 05 Aug 2006, 07:42
A big raise has not only been given, at the beginning of the u2lover 11 14 Jul 2006, 19:59
Lambert: The proposal to raise gasoline taxes to support chunjuwu 6 05 Apr 2005, 05:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 25 posts ] 



cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.