A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people

Hi EMPOWERgmatMax,

Yes I agree, A is the best available option.

But on scutinizing it further, I infer that Option A talks about the revenue being generated from the raise in gasoline tax can be used for the betterment of public transportation. But then, the govt. is raising the tax with the motive that people will stop using their cars and this in turn will reduce the gasoline consumption. Then, how will the govt. generate the extra revenue that option A talks about?

Kindly confirm if I am thinking on the right lines?

Regards
Sidhant Sharma

Hi sidhant10,

I REALLY like your critical thinking here: If the government plans to levy a tax to reduce driving, wouldn't its success also limit the amount of gas sold that can be taxed?

Here's why that's a non-factor: I think you might be blurring your question types, and treating A as though it were an answer option for an inference question. No, it can't be inferred from the prompt that A is guaranteed to work, BUT we are not dealing with an Inference question. This is a Strengthen question, and the question is says

"In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?"

So the question is guaranteeing the outcome in option A, and it's because we're told that A is true that we know that the transit project can happen. That ultimately means that since it's a given, we need not infer anything about the government's ability to follow through on (or the feasibility of) the mass transit project, nor are we asked to.

Agreed..!!
-Adding my 2 cents to this discussion. There is no where mentioned in the argument that people will stop driving immediately. While thinking that tax raise will actually decrease the government revenue, we are assuming that the GOAL to reduce traffic congestion in not long-term.
And that`s why fall into the trap.

Somehow though B was the option
But explanations given show A is correct, which now sounds good

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic-congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In the light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation.
D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.


Hi Experts

Here first I post my analysis previous to my queries:

Logical structure:
Argument is providing contrasting views about a plan

Premise 1: Gov plan: increase in gas tax → people will drive less → reduce traffic (long term)
Premise 2 (Contrasting view): Skeptics: Most people live in areas where cars only mean viable of transportation to jobs, stores.
Conclusion: Therefore, higher gas prices cannot greatly change people’s driving habits.

Question esteem: Strenghten premise 1 (Government plan)

Per my understanding this question is not asking to weaken the conclusion or the logical structure of the whole argument. Instead, is asking to support one of the premises (Government’s plan), while still considering the contrasting view of skeptics.: “In the light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?”

Pre-thinking
•Government believes that, in the long term, the increase in the gas price tax will successfully reduce traffic.
•Government believes that cars are responsible for traffic and no other transportations.
•Skeptics believe that nowadays, there are no other ways of transportation available where most people live to go to jobs and stores than cars (cars needed for transportation).
•Skeptics believe that even with increase in gas prices tax, people will still drive cars because of limited transportation.

Answer choice analysis

A) Correct. This answer supports Government’s plan while still considering skeptics view. Even if the increase in gas tax prices is not effective nowadays, there will be a switch of driving habits in the long term and thus reducing traffic: Nowdays people will pay the higher gas price tax (supports or considers Skeptics view), but if the revenue will be use to implement public transportation, there will be a switch in driving habits and therefore traffic will be reduced in the long term (Supports Government plans).

B) Opossite. This option weakens the Government plans because people will still driving their cars (fuel efficient or not) in the long term, thus traffic will be still be a problem.

C) Opossite. Since gas has been underprice, we could think that people still can afford an increase, and thus they will still keep driving, specially if there is no other means of transportation.

D) Opposite. This option facilitates an strategy that will allow people keep driving without expending more money.

E) OFS. Not talking about how the increase in gas price will affect traffic.


Please help me with the following queries:
1) Is my understanding of the question stem correct? Is this question actually asking to support one of the premises and not the conclusion of the argument?

2) Is each analysis of the answer choices correct? Did I refuse B, C, D and E for the right reasons?


Thanks a lot!

Rumi

EMPOWERgmatMax -
Can I say that it strengthens the possibility that the outcome will happen.

As per my understanding all strengthen and weaken are assumption questions. The missing assumption has to be linked in the argument.
To prove an assumption we need one of the 3 below mentioned
1. Possibility
2. Relevance
3.No other outcome.

1 is satisfied here. So would i be correct if i look at the question like this, Because what works for assumption could/should work for strengthen

Hi lee2390,

I like your summary. It's clean. With point 3, instead of "No other outcome", it's "No other factors" (causal arguments assume no other factors).

To your specific question: all proposals assume that the proposal/plan is possible (we have capacity for the proposal/plan). So now, going back to my analysis earlier, let's take a look at the bold component:

"To strengthen the government's proposal, and show that it is likely to succeed in reducing traffic, we need to find a way to overcome that hurdle."

As you can see, we are precisely looking to reinforce the notion that this proposal has the capacity to do what seeks to. In that sense, we're doing the exact same thing. You're just using different words to describe it. Nice work!

EMPOWERgmatMax
Hello and thanks for your reply.

So i reckon you would agree that understanding and narrowing down the answers for strengthen/weaken/evaluate questions can be done via the tactics as mentioned by you in the assumptioon module.
I ask this question because many times i have figured out that if i follow the assumption strategy i would be able to get the correct answer.

This this answer could be done by POE blindly but i thought of going one step further.(Just to get to the mark where i want to )

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

1> carpooling
2> may be stores will establish closeby seeing the higher gasoline prices because they knew that consumers will prefer that option.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems. : Evewn if so, will that impact traffic, no.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation => but even if so, does this give any info, that in future condition will improve , no.

So A.

Hi lee2390,

Although I COMPLETELY see the temptation to do so, don't. The GMAT test-writer team is way too talented for us to cut any corners, and there is no extra credit for finishing early. That said, I'm glad to see that you're already spotting broader patterns. That will help you arrive at the correct option faster without cutting any corners, and with a greater confidence quotient.

Conclusion: the Government wants to reduce congestion in the long term.

Premise: the Government wants to do that by raising the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less.

Counter Premise: However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?


Pre-thinking: If we want to reduce the traffic congestion, we need to look for a reason, which would tell us clearly that people will stop using cars when the taxes are increased.
It could be reasons like people cannot afford such increase in tax and hence would either start car-pooling or use buses or even start walking. Keeping this in mind, let us look at the answer options.

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.[This is clearly the correct answer because it tells us that an alternate means of transportation will be made available and hence that would give incentive to people to drive less and hence the congestion would reduce.]

(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.[Switching to a fuel-efficient car will not reduce the number of cars on the street and hence the number of people driving the car would not be reduced. So, this cannot be the answer.]

(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation. [This tells us the reason why a lot of people use cars. It does not tell us that if the increase in taxes will stop people from using cars! Hence, this cannot be the answer.]

(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.[This is clearly out of Scope! Driving habits are not in question here.]

(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.[Trafice Congestion is a problem, but that is not deterring the people from still using cars. Also, this does not tell us why the govt.'s plan would be successful. If traffic congestion is really a problem for people driving cars, that means they do not have any alternate viable option to travel, thus, even if the government increases the taxes, that would not deter the people to drive less. Hence this cannot be the correct answer.]

"A" is the correct answer choice - If the tax will fund these public transit improvements, then far more people will have a viable means of transportation other than driving, undermining the basis of the skeptics’ objection.

Situation: Govt plans to raise gasoline tax in order to (a) reduce traffic congestion (b) discourage people from driving. Skeptics says, people are dependent heavily on cars as there are no other means of transportation.

Aim: Look for piece of information due to which traffic congestion will reduce, keeping skeptics point in mind. Pre-thinking - Alternate such as carpools, public transport, etc..

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

This is a strenghten the argument question.

This is a strengthen the argument question.
Like weaken, strengthen questions also require us to isolate the conclusion. As we will be looking for the answer that makes our belief stronger on the premise-conclusion relationship such as analogies, survey, reports, statistical data etc.
Protect the missing information
a) by keeping any option that fills the gap
b) by eliminating the answer that attacks the missing information

Conclusion : Raise the gasoline tax -- people drive less -- reduce traffic congestion in the long term.
We need an answer choice that makes this conclusion valid and stronger.

B talks about air pollution and other problems which is out of scope. We are talking about traffic congestion.
C out of acope.
D is helping becuase people are still driving by compensating other expenses which will ot help in reducing the traffic congestion .
E is also out of scope.

A wins! Public transportation will help to reduce no of cars on the road, consequently reducing the traffic congestion.

Please press kudos if my answer helps.

Empowergmat please correct me if I am wrong.

For all those people who were confused with option A like I was.



Option A and B,I picked B…I thought its talking about revenue from tax and plans..... ..this means he is already considering the plan is successful..so this is out//This is something post the event
MY GAP.
There will always be two segment of people .One affected and another not affected.One segment might be more and other less but it doesnt matter.

In strengthen question we just need to increase the liklihood of what is being asked for.

Improved public transit will enable people affected by the tax to drive less. So, the tax should reduce traffic congestion because it will be used to improve public transportation.


Press Kudos if it helps!!

Asked: Strengthen the govt's plan to reduce traffic congestion in long term

Pre think: A plausible assumption which could help achieve the govt's plan is that maybe the residents will start car pooling in order to reach their destination and will also result in lesser cars on the road. Or maybe the govt will do something about public transport in order to satisfy the residents as well as reduce congestion in long term

Option analysis:
A) Correct. Matches our pre-thinking
B) Even if that is the case, traffic congestion won't reduce and govt's plan won't be achieved
C) Irrelevant
D) Govt's plan won't be achieved. This option weakens
E) Generic statement that merely acts as a premise, if true. Out of focus

I choose C. The way I understood C was that the low cost of gasoline is what led to the increased use of cars. And after the government increases the tax the use of cars will decrease. Whereas choice A does not address how the tax increase will influence car use, it rather provides a future plan that the govt. plans to implement. Let me know what I am missing out on.

hi GMATNINJA
why is C wrong.
because CAR was viable lately, but now as government has raised Tax, so car may not be the most viable mean.