|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 228
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 2
|
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]
 13 Oct 2009, 06:51
Question Stats:
32% (02:59) correct
67% (01:54) wrong based on 1 sessions
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.
In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.
C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.
D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 228
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 2
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 06:51
OA to come this afternoon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 278
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 08:06
IMO E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 338
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 5
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 08:26
"Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000."
Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area.
However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area.
Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.
I will go for B
"The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: PMP
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 319
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
76
[0], given: 37
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 09:36
I'll go with E. because tha author says "However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area". So he is sure the statement of causation is not going to work in this case and hence provided reasoning to support it.
_________________
Thanks, Sri
-------------------------------
keep uppp...ing the tempo...
Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 921
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
123
[0], given: 18
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 09:56
IMO E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 332
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 11:05
IMO E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 13 May 2009
Posts: 24
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 11:17
I will also go with E.
B seems incorrect as author never says that the first statement would hold true always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 228
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 2
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Oct 2009, 12:12
OA is E
This answer choice correctly identifies the first bold portion as a statement of causation that does not support the author’s claim, and the second bold statement as a line of logic that does support this claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 709
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 37
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
28 Aug 2011, 22:33
+1 for E.
Both the bold-face portions fall in the "claim" category,as opposed to "fact" category. Using this information we can eliminate A, B, C and D as these choices lists one of them as evidence/fact.
Crick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Still Struggling
Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 142
Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-15-2011
GPA: 3.71
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 8
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
09 Sep 2011, 04:42
I am not sure why the OA is E. the first statement reveals that the fine has been helpful in reducing the litter. the 2nd statement reveals that the fine would be discarded completely. The only option C justifies this. the first statement is assumed to be true(because of the hepfulness of the fine) and the seconf one is consequence of the fees that is predicted. Can you guys please explain me why the ans is E? hogann wrote: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.
In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.
C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.
D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.
_________________
Appreciation in KUDOS please!
Knewton Free Test 10/03 - 710 (49/37)
Princeton Free Test 10/08 - 610 (44/31)
Kaplan Test 1- 10/10 - 630
Veritas Prep- 10/11 - 630 (42/37)
MGMAT 1 - 10/12 - 680 (45/34)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 109
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 15
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
09 Sep 2011, 11:06
hogann wrote: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.
In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.
C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.
D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction. Chose D but now understand why E is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: MBAing!!!!
Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 314
Location: United States (FL)
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
Schools: Wharton '14 (D), CBS '14 (WL), Ross '14 (WL), Haas '14 (D), Johnson '14 (A), McCombs '14, Kenan-Flagler '14 (M), Madison (A), Consortium (D), Consortium (A), Consortium (M), Consortium, Consortium (A), Consortium (WL)
GPA: 3.65
WE: Project Management (Real Estate)
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
41
[0], given: 56
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
09 Sep 2011, 14:36
I picked B. 1-this boldface statement is part of a possible cause and effect relationship 2-this boldface statement contradicts the 1st statement I understand why the OA is E. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 177
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
10 Sep 2011, 02:13
IMO E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 202
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.2
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 21
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
10 Sep 2011, 07:17
Very good question. I was just watching B and E to select the right one. Finally guessed E.
_________________
Two great challenges: 1. Guts to Fail and 2. Fear to Succeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
27
[0], given: 21
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
10 Sep 2011, 11:56
yup +1 for E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 95
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
13 Sep 2011, 11:09
E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 202
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.2
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 21
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering [#permalink]
14 Sep 2011, 05:27
E it is 
_________________
Two great challenges: 1. Guts to Fail and 2. Fear to Succeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Tuesday Q3 - Littering
[#permalink]
14 Sep 2011, 05:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
