Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of : Critical Reasoning (CR)

manishkhare

Manager

Joined: 21 Jun 2014

Posts: 81

Own Kudos [?]: 361 [0]

Given Kudos: 59

Location: United States

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31

GPA: 3.4

WE:Engineering (Computer Software)

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

04 Oct 2015, 06:03

in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.

Policy makers will be comfortable with setting a upper limit but oppose any new tax. Option E brings out this point.

B

BrainLab

Current Student

Joined: 10 Mar 2013

Posts: 360

Own Kudos [?]: 2697 [0]

Given Kudos: 200

Location: Germany

Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship

Schools: WHU MBA"20 (A$)

GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24

GPA: 3.7

WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

22 Nov 2015, 14:52

WillGetIt wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are taxed untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore. the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Please hit "+1 kudos" to appreciate

Hi Willgetit,

there are some typos in the question stem, could you please correct them. Thanks.

B

LogicGuru1

Senior Manager

Joined: 04 Jun 2016

Posts: 484

Own Kudos [?]: 2335 [6]

Given Kudos: 36

GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

10 Jul 2016, 13:01

6

Kudos

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS E

See this analogy
John is coming to dinner. John hate lettuce that is boiled with peas and carrots. So lets boil lettuce with herbs and mint.
What is the assumption? John will not hate hate lettuce when it will be boiled with herbs and mint.
What is the reality :- John absolutely hate lettuce, boiled, deep fried, raw , spiced or anything. If lettuce is there, john will not eat it.

Similarly in this argument:-
Policy maker oppose New tax in proportion to damage
Policy maker will pass tax with a fixed fine.
Reality :- Policy maker hate any kind of tax, whether in proportion to the damage or whether fixed fine or whether yearly pollution tax. If there is tax , policy maker will oppose it.
What is wrongly assumed in the argument?
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS E

WillGetIt wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Please hit "+1 kudos" to appreciate

B

ManuelJesus

Intern

Joined: 01 Apr 2017

Posts: 15

Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]

Given Kudos: 11

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

03 May 2017, 06:47

EMPOWERgmatMax wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

Ⓐ Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
Ⓑ Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
Ⓒ Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
Ⓓ Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
Ⓔ Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

EMPOWERgmat Enhanced Explanation
Type: Assumption
Boil It Down: Can’t tax -> Impose limit is best
Missing Information: The proposal is possible
Goal: Find the option that the logic of the argument requires for it to work
Analysis: This argument suddenly announces that because one remedy (increasing taxes) can’t work, that this other option (imposing limits) is the best, but that leaves a pretty big gap open. Additionally, this argument presumes that instituting a fixed upper limit is even capable of reducing emissions. How do we know that this plan could even work? We don't.

Ⓐ The argument already established that new taxes are out, so because this option raises something already established, it’s not assumed. Assumptions are never written. They are unstated, but required for the logic of the argument to work.
Ⓑ This is a 180 option. The argument actually states that the most efficient way to reduce is emissions is by taxing them, and this option seeks to directly counter that established fact.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t require a STRONG favoring of air pollution limits for it to hold. This option goes too far. Reasonable support could be enough for the argument to hold.
Ⓓ The argument also doesn’t require that the reduction in emissions occurs with maximum economic efficiency. For all we know, a reasonable degree of economic efficiency is plenty.
Ⓔ Yes! The argument absolutely presumes that policy makers would be on board with this upper limit alternative. Isn’t it really odd that the economist magically asserted that because taxes won’t be supported, that this fixed upper limit will? The argument completely presumes that this alternative is possible too.

Hello EmpowerGMAT,

I was between choices C and E, and finally I choose C, I would like you challenge my reasoning. First, I used a common sense fact: to pass a bill or regulation, policy makers need the majority of votes (>50%). What does a strong support mean?, I assumed more than 75%, is there any convention for the word ''strong'' in terms of percentages?

Choice C: Policy makers need the majority of votes, not necessarily a strong support, so this assumption MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.
Choice E: Policy makers need the majority of votes, If the support in favor of fixed limits is less stronger than the support on new taxes, this less strong support could be up or down the majority of votes but not strong, so this assumption MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.

If my reasoning is correct, why do you eliminated choice C?.

Beforehand very thank you.

B

Aiena

Intern

Joined: 11 Sep 2017

Posts: 14

Own Kudos [?]: 47 [2]

Given Kudos: 133

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

05 Jan 2018, 14:09

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

ManuelJesus wrote:

EMPOWERgmatMax wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

Ⓐ Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
Ⓑ Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
Ⓒ Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
Ⓓ Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
Ⓔ Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

EMPOWERgmat Enhanced Explanation
Type: Assumption
Boil It Down: Can’t tax -> Impose limit is best
Missing Information: The proposal is possible
Goal: Find the option that the logic of the argument requires for it to work
Analysis: This argument suddenly announces that because one remedy (increasing taxes) can’t work, that this other option (imposing limits) is the best, but that leaves a pretty big gap open. Additionally, this argument presumes that instituting a fixed upper limit is even capable of reducing emissions. How do we know that this plan could even work? We don't.

Ⓐ The argument already established that new taxes are out, so because this option raises something already established, it’s not assumed. Assumptions are never written. They are unstated, but required for the logic of the argument to work.
Ⓑ This is a 180 option. The argument actually states that the most efficient way to reduce is emissions is by taxing them, and this option seeks to directly counter that established fact.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t require a STRONG favoring of air pollution limits for it to hold. This option goes too far. Reasonable support could be enough for the argument to hold.
Ⓓ The argument also doesn’t require that the reduction in emissions occurs with maximum economic efficiency. For all we know, a reasonable degree of economic efficiency is plenty.
Ⓔ Yes! The argument absolutely presumes that policy makers would be on board with this upper limit alternative. Isn’t it really odd that the economist magically asserted that because taxes won’t be supported, that this fixed upper limit will? The argument completely presumes that this alternative is possible too.

Hello EmpowerGMAT,

I was between choices C and E, and finally I choose C, I would like you challenge my reasoning. First, I used a common sense fact: to pass a bill or regulation, policy makers need the majority of votes (>50%). What does a strong support mean?, I assumed more than 75%, is there any convention for the word ''strong'' in terms of percentages?

Choice C: Policy makers need the majority of votes, not necessarily a strong support, so this assumption MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.
Choice E: Policy makers need the majority of votes, If the support in favor of fixed limits is less stronger than the support on new taxes, this less strong support could be up or down the majority of votes but not strong, so this assumption MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.

If my reasoning is correct, why do you eliminated choice C?.

Beforehand very thank you.

Hi Manuel,

I'll try to explain why E is the correct answer and not C-

ECONOMIST'S CONCLUSION:
In country Y, Putting fixed upper limit is the best way to reduce air pollution.

He/she bases this conclusion on the below PREMISES-
1. In country Y, many serious pollutant are not taxed and are not regulated.
2. Policy makers of country Y strongly oppose new taxes.

When I'm PRE-THINKING, I'm asking myself- how do I connect "putting fixed upper limit as a way to reduce pollution" (conclusion) and "policy makers not wanting to tax emissions" (premise)? What is the gap between the two? So, The policy makers must be okay with fixing the upper limit (as they oppose the taxes).

Answer choice C does not connect the premises and the conclusion. Even if the policy makers favor reductions in emissions, this answer choice does not talk about "fixing upper limit" at all. When I negate C (Policy makers in country Y DO NOT strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions), it does not shatter the conclusion.

Answer choice E matches with our pre-thinking. To be dead sure, if you negate E, the conclusions falls apart; hence, E is the correct answer.

I hope this helps.

Aiena.

L

adkikani

IIM School Moderator

Joined: 04 Sep 2016

Posts: 1261

Own Kudos [?]: 1240 [0]

Given Kudos: 1207

Location: India

WE:Engineering (Other)

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

02 Jun 2018, 06:04

Hi GMATNinja

I found this Q to apply correctly beginner's guide mentioned here

I would like to know if conclusion would have been:
the ONLY way to achieve a reduction on air pollutant emissions is to introduce fixed upper limits on them
Even then (B) would be incorrect since it is creating a doubt on premise (statement 1).
Let me know your thoughts.

L

souvik101990

Alum

Joined: 19 Mar 2012

Posts: 4341

Own Kudos [?]: 51451 [2]

Given Kudos: 2326

Location: United States (WA)

Concentration: Leadership, General Management

Schools: Ross '20 (M)

GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42 Verified score

GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online) Verified score

GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online) Verified score

GPA: 3.8

WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

02 Jun 2018, 07:52

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

adkikani - do you intend to change the conclusion keeping the entire argument similar? In that case, B would still be irrelevant. But as a thumb rule, I would actively avoid playing What-If games on the GMAT Verbal.

B

manishk30

Intern

Joined: 10 Jul 2016

Posts: 32

Own Kudos [?]: 17 [1]

Given Kudos: 34

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

16 Jun 2018, 01:14

1

Kudos

EMPOWERgmatVerbal wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

Ⓐ Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
Ⓑ Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
Ⓒ Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
Ⓓ Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
Ⓔ Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

EMPOWERgmat Enhanced Explanation
Type: Assumption
Boil It Down: Can’t tax -> Impose limit is best
Missing Information: The proposal is possible
Goal: Find the option that the logic of the argument requires for it to work
Analysis: This argument suddenly announces that because one remedy (increasing taxes) can’t work, that this other option (imposing limits) is the best, but that leaves a pretty big gap open. Additionally, this argument presumes that instituting a fixed upper limit is even capable of reducing emissions. How do we know that this plan could even work? We don't.

Ⓐ The argument already established that new taxes are out, so because this option raises something already established, it’s not assumed. Assumptions are never written. They are unstated, but required for the logic of the argument to work.
Ⓑ This is a 180 option. The argument actually states that the most efficient way to reduce is emissions is by taxing them, and this option seeks to directly counter that established fact.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t require a STRONG favoring of air pollution limits for it to hold. This option goes too far. Reasonable support could be enough for the argument to hold.
Ⓓ The argument also doesn’t require that the reduction in emissions occurs with maximum economic efficiency. For all we know, a reasonable degree of economic efficiency is plenty.
Ⓔ Yes! The argument absolutely presumes that policy makers would be on board with this upper limit alternative. Isn’t it really odd that the economist magically asserted that because taxes won’t be supported, that this fixed upper limit will? The argument completely presumes that this alternative is possible too.

If this was a strengthening question, I think would go with C option.
I think it is similar to that 'The Eurasian ruffe..... ' strengthening question in which the correct option was C. C said that until People are interested in preserving the lake, it cannot be preserved.
Same logic applies here that until Policy makers strongly favours reductions, the air pollution cannot be reduced.

Could you please let me know if my reasoning is correct.

B

yonseiglobalstudent

Intern

Joined: 15 Dec 2017

Posts: 11

Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]

Given Kudos: 11

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

19 Jun 2018, 02:11

BrainLab wrote:

WillGetIt wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are taxed untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore. the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Please hit "+1 kudos" to appreciate

Hi Willgetit,

there are some typos in the question stem, could you please correct them. Thanks.

There are also a few typos in the answer choices...

D

sayan640

Senior Manager

Joined: 29 Oct 2015

Posts: 482

Own Kudos [?]: 262 [0]

Given Kudos: 306

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

31 Mar 2019, 19:53

Only option B and E are close.
Premise :- Many pollutants are untaxed but politicians oppose new taxes.
Conclusion : - Fixing upper limits on air pollutants should be done.
Assumption : - Politicians wont oppose fixinf upper limits as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
Option B is wrong because it talks about imposing taxes which is not possoble as politicians are oppose taxes.
If you negate option B it becomes " Country Y's air pollutant emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause."
Then also the conclusion follows...then also we can say that we should fix upper limits on air pollutant emissions. Because fixing upper limits is also going to help in some way in reducing emissions.

G

ajaygaur319

Manager

Joined: 05 May 2019

Posts: 131

Own Kudos [?]: 556 [1]

Given Kudos: 143

Location: India

Schools: NYU Tech MBA "21

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

25 Feb 2020, 03:38

1

Bookmarks

Context: Most serious pollutants should be taxed.
Premise: Policy makers strongly object the taxation on serious pollutants.
Conclusion: Country Y will institute fixed upper limit on the pollutants.

Using egmat falsification scenario:
In what scenario, country Y will not institute fixed upper limit on the pollutants?
Given that, they are against the taxation on serious pollutants

Country Y will not institute fixed upper limit on the pollutants if the policy makers don't agree to the fixed limit itself and give a similar reason what they gave for the taxation.

So the assumption can be:
Country Y will institute fixed upper limit on the pollutants if the policy makers agree to the fixed limit of pollutants.

choice (E) is along the lines of our assumption. Let's reject all other choices as well:
(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide. - No relation between policy makers and the institution of fixed limit
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. - This is in lines with the premise and the statement is wrong too. Even if it is true, it doesn't give any relation between policy makers and the institution of fixed limit.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favour reductions in a pollutant emissions. - This seems to be a restatement (and out of context, we don't care statement) of conclusion because they are concerned and this is why they are taking a step.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently - We are not sure whether the institution will be the right strategy for country Y. There is no information given about the economic efficiency in the passage and we cannot take a decision on the basis of this
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes. - Along the lines of our assumption

L

egmat

e-GMAT Representative

Joined: 02 Nov 2011

Posts: 4348

Own Kudos [?]: 30800 [2]

Given Kudos: 637

GMAT Date: 08-19-2020

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

10 Mar 2021, 01:50

2

Kudos

Expert Reply

The correct answer - option E.

Let us follow a step by step approach to solve this.

Conclusion: the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.
Logic:
1. Taxing is more economically efficient but policy makers strongly oppose new taxes (making it an unfeasible option)

Falsification Question: In what scenario will instituting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions not be the best way to achieve a reduction?

Falsification Conditions:

1. What if there is a way that is even better? for example, some sort of incentivization for lesser emissions (tax benefits for lesser emissions, perhaps?). The economist assumes that forcing an upper limit is THE BEST way.

The underlying assumption here is that there is no other way which is actually better

2. What if the policy makers oppose upper limits as ferociously as they do for taxes?
Remember the logic - why does the economist believe taxation is not feasible. Because policy makers strongly oppose it. What will happen if the policy makers oppose upper limits the same way? Then can the economists still confidently say fixing upper limit is the best way? No

The underlying assumption is that the policy makers in country Y will not give as strong an opposition to fixing upper limits, as they have done to damage-proportionate taxation.

Option Choice Analysis

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
The conclusion is not about taxes, but about fixing upper limits on air pollutant emissions. Irrelevant

(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
Again - is our argument for which we are trying to find the assumption, about how effective proportionate taxation will be? or is it about some other proposal (fixed upper limits). Irrelevant.
Side Note - We are only given that taxation is the most economically efficient, that does not imply that it is the best, or that it will be able to significantly reduce emissions. For all we know, it will not (option B). But it is still irrelevant to our conclusion about fixing upper limits

(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
Even if they do not favour reducing these emissions, they may still not oppose, or may not oppose as strongly the suggestion of fixing upper limits. Which means, this may still be the best way (conclusion can hold true, even with negated assumption - so not Must Be True)

(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
What they believe in does not matter. Actual action does

. From the argument, we already know that they strongly opposed what is the most economically efficient option. Which tells us they have not acted as per their belief. More importantly, all this tells us nothing about whether the plan to fix upper limits is the best. So, not really relevant. It is not required that the policy makers have this belief for this conclusion to hold true.

(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
Correct. as per prethinking.

Hope this helps!

Harsha

S

woohoo921

Director

Joined: 04 Jun 2020

Posts: 552

Own Kudos [?]: 67 [0]

Given Kudos: 626

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

25 Feb 2022, 10:46

egmat wrote:

The correct answer - option E.

Let us follow a step by step approach to solve this.

Conclusion: the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.
Logic:
1. Taxing is more economically efficient but policy makers strongly oppose new taxes (making it an unfeasible option)

Falsification Question: In what scenario will instituting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions not be the best way to achieve a reduction?

Falsification Conditions:

1. What if there is a way that is even better? for example, some sort of incentivization for lesser emissions (tax benefits for lesser emissions, perhaps?). The economist assumes that forcing an upper limit is THE BEST way.

The underlying assumption here is that there is no other way which is actually better

2. What if the policy makers oppose upper limits as ferociously as they do for taxes?
Remember the logic - why does the economist believe taxation is not feasible. Because policy makers strongly oppose it. What will happen if the policy makers oppose upper limits the same way? Then can the economists still confidently say fixing upper limit is the best way? No

The underlying assumption is that the policy makers in country Y will not give as strong an opposition to fixing upper limits, as they have done to damage-proportionate taxation.

Option Choice Analysis

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
The conclusion is not about taxes, but about fixing upper limits on air pollutant emissions. Irrelevant

(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
Again - is our argument for which we are trying to find the assumption, about how effective proportionate taxation will be? or is it about some other proposal (fixed upper limits). Irrelevant.
Side Note - We are only given that taxation is the most economically efficient, that does not imply that it is the best, or that it will be able to significantly reduce emissions. For all we know, it will not (option B). But it is still irrelevant to our conclusion about fixing upper limits

(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
Even if they do not favour reducing these emissions, they may still not oppose, or may not oppose as strongly the suggestion of fixing upper limits. Which means, this may still be the best way (conclusion can hold true, even with negated assumption - so not Must Be True)

(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
What they believe in does not matter. Actual action does

. From the argument, we already know that they strongly opposed what is the most economically efficient option. Which tells us they have not acted as per their belief. More importantly, all this tells us nothing about whether the plan to fix upper limits is the best. So, not really relevant. It is not required that the policy makers have this belief for this conclusion to hold true.

(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
Correct. as per prethinking.

Hope this helps!

Harsha

egmat
To clarify the user's question above.... "The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are like to cause" is this considered to be context for the argument or another premise? Thank you!

serj37

Intern

Joined: 11 Sep 2022

Posts: 1

Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]

Given Kudos: 0

Location: Russian Federation

Schools: Bayes

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

11 Sep 2022, 00:32

WillGetIt wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

ID - CR09151

Show Spoiler

Reducing Air Pollution

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

E: tax pollutants in prop. to damage = MOST cost eff

BUT: Y: oppose taxes + many pollutants unreg.

→ best way in Y = upper limits, NOT tax

On the one hand, the author believes that the most economically efficient way to reduce air pollution is to tax emissions. However, he argues that this won’t be effective in Country Y. In Country Y, it will be more effective to institute fixed upper limits for pollutant emissions. The evidence for this is that Country Y’s policy makers oppose new taxes, and serious pollutants are not currently taxed or regulated.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the goal is to identify an assumption that is critical to the logic of the argument. The right answer will be a statement that the author must believe to be true in order to logically draw the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that, in Country Y, the best approach to reducing air pollution is instituting fixed upper limits. What else must be true, in order to logically conclude that this is the best approach?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This doesn’t have to be true. For instance, policy makers in Country Y could vehemently oppose new taxes on pollutants, but only mildly oppose new income taxes. In this scenario, the conclusion would still be reasonable.

(B) This is a strengthener, since it implies that taxation would be unsuccessful for another reason, beyond the reasoning already provided in the argument. However, an assumption must make a statement that has to be true, not just one that strengthens the argument. This answer choice, logically, could be false even while the argument is still valid. To prove this, try the negation test: Country Y’s emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage. In this case, the conclusion of the argument could still be true, because fixed upper limits could still be a better method for other reasons.

(C) This answer seems to imply that policy makers in Country Y will be more willing to accept policies that reduce pollutant emissions in general. However, it does not support one method of reduction over another. The conclusion specifically states that one method is better than the other method in Country Y, so this answer choice does not directly affect the conclusion.

(D) If this were true, the conclusion would be less logically sound. If policy makers in Country Y mostly cared about economic efficiency, they would probably prefer taxes over fixed upper limits, since taxes are described as the most economically efficient method.

(E) CORRECT. The author concludes that the best way to reduce pollution in Country Y is to institute fixed upper limits on emissions. In order to accept this conclusion, the author must assume that policy makers in Country Y will not oppose these upper limits—or, at least, that they will not oppose them as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Good day!
Economic methods of reducing pollution emissions work poorly. The development of a regulated industry is often reduced.
I can suggest a more radical and effective way to reduce emissions - the use of new, energy-efficient and green technologies.
For example, the largest emissions in industry are produced by heavy industry, in particular the steel and aluminum industries. Emissions from the aluminum industry account for 3% of all CO2 emissions on the planet. Electricity consumption is 4% of all electricity generated by mankind. This is more than is consumed in everyday life. You can fight this, here is an example - greenalum[dot]org/en/aluminum-production

B

pan1pan2

Intern

Joined: 13 Oct 2021

Posts: 29

Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]

Given Kudos: 38

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

24 Apr 2023, 09:42

In choice E: Even though policy maker does not oppose setting upper limit as strongly as new tax, it is still entirely possible for policy maker to reject both methods.

If I hate A at 9 and hate B at 8, I will probably reject both of them, but I still not hate B as much as A.

While should policy maker poorly favor setting upper limit, it will sound more plausible for them to reject the method?

So, why the answer pick E over C?

G

Iwillget770

Manager

Joined: 25 Jul 2023

Posts: 106

Own Kudos [?]: 136 [0]

Given Kudos: 63

Send PM

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

06 Sep 2023, 05:47

WillGetIt wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

ID - CR09151

Show Spoiler

Reducing Air Pollution

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

E: tax pollutants in prop. to damage = MOST cost eff

BUT: Y: oppose taxes + many pollutants unreg.

→ best way in Y = upper limits, NOT tax

On the one hand, the author believes that the most economically efficient way to reduce air pollution is to tax emissions. However, he argues that this won’t be effective in Country Y. In Country Y, it will be more effective to institute fixed upper limits for pollutant emissions. The evidence for this is that Country Y’s policy makers oppose new taxes, and serious pollutants are not currently taxed or regulated.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the goal is to identify an assumption that is critical to the logic of the argument. The right answer will be a statement that the author must believe to be true in order to logically draw the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that, in Country Y, the best approach to reducing air pollution is instituting fixed upper limits. What else must be true, in order to logically conclude that this is the best approach?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This doesn’t have to be true. For instance, policy makers in Country Y could vehemently oppose new taxes on pollutants, but only mildly oppose new income taxes. In this scenario, the conclusion would still be reasonable.

(B) This is a strengthener, since it implies that taxation would be unsuccessful for another reason, beyond the reasoning already provided in the argument. However, an assumption must make a statement that has to be true, not just one that strengthens the argument. This answer choice, logically, could be false even while the argument is still valid. To prove this, try the negation test: Country Y’s emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage. In this case, the conclusion of the argument could still be true, because fixed upper limits could still be a better method for other reasons.

(C) This answer seems to imply that policy makers in Country Y will be more willing to accept policies that reduce pollutant emissions in general. However, it does not support one method of reduction over another. The conclusion specifically states that one method is better than the other method in Country Y, so this answer choice does not directly affect the conclusion.

(D) If this were true, the conclusion would be less logically sound. If policy makers in Country Y mostly cared about economic efficiency, they would probably prefer taxes over fixed upper limits, since taxes are described as the most economically efficient method.

(E) CORRECT. The author concludes that the best way to reduce pollution in Country Y is to institute fixed upper limits on emissions. In order to accept this conclusion, the author must assume that policy makers in Country Y will not oppose these upper limits—or, at least, that they will not oppose them as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Hi AndrewN ,

I was confused b/w option C and E . At the end I went with Option C.
So , I followed your approach of missing link ie I try to put the answer choices b/w the premise and conclusion .

Evidence/Premise : But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.

Missing Link :

Conclusion : the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Lets Put both C and E and Analyze

Quote:

Lets start with E

Evidence/Premise : But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.

Missing Link : Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Conclusion : the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Policy makers don't oppose fixing upper limits as strongly as they oppose new taxes. Ok ,so Policy makers still oppose fixing upper limits.
So, even if we fix the upper limit , we may not be able to achieve reduction in air pollutant emissions because policy makers may/may not oppose the upper limits.

Lets put C

Evidence/Premise : But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.

Missing Link : Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.

Conclusion : the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

okay , So lets negate this .

Policy makers in Country Y doesnot favor reductions in air pollutant emissions. Then , in this case our conclusion will fall apart.
Hence, I feel Choice C is much more stronger assumption that Choice E because if Policy makers hate reductions then no matter what we do , our aim of achieving reduction in air pollutants will fail.

Consequently, I went with Choice C.

Please guide.

Regards

L

AndrewN

Volunteer Expert

Joined: 16 May 2019

Posts: 3512

Own Kudos [?]: 6860 [0]

Given Kudos: 500

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

06 Sep 2023, 11:42

Expert Reply

Iwillget770 wrote:

WillGetIt wrote:

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

ID - CR09151

Show Spoiler

Reducing Air Pollution

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

E: tax pollutants in prop. to damage = MOST cost eff

BUT: Y: oppose taxes + many pollutants unreg.

→ best way in Y = upper limits, NOT tax

On the one hand, the author believes that the most economically efficient way to reduce air pollution is to tax emissions. However, he argues that this won’t be effective in Country Y. In Country Y, it will be more effective to institute fixed upper limits for pollutant emissions. The evidence for this is that Country Y’s policy makers oppose new taxes, and serious pollutants are not currently taxed or regulated.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Assumption questions, the goal is to identify an assumption that is critical to the logic of the argument. The right answer will be a statement that the author must believe to be true in order to logically draw the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that, in Country Y, the best approach to reducing air pollution is instituting fixed upper limits. What else must be true, in order to logically conclude that this is the best approach?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This doesn’t have to be true. For instance, policy makers in Country Y could vehemently oppose new taxes on pollutants, but only mildly oppose new income taxes. In this scenario, the conclusion would still be reasonable.

(B) This is a strengthener, since it implies that taxation would be unsuccessful for another reason, beyond the reasoning already provided in the argument. However, an assumption must make a statement that has to be true, not just one that strengthens the argument. This answer choice, logically, could be false even while the argument is still valid. To prove this, try the negation test: Country Y’s emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage. In this case, the conclusion of the argument could still be true, because fixed upper limits could still be a better method for other reasons.

(C) This answer seems to imply that policy makers in Country Y will be more willing to accept policies that reduce pollutant emissions in general. However, it does not support one method of reduction over another. The conclusion specifically states that one method is better than the other method in Country Y, so this answer choice does not directly affect the conclusion.

(D) If this were true, the conclusion would be less logically sound. If policy makers in Country Y mostly cared about economic efficiency, they would probably prefer taxes over fixed upper limits, since taxes are described as the most economically efficient method.

(E) CORRECT. The author concludes that the best way to reduce pollution in Country Y is to institute fixed upper limits on emissions. In order to accept this conclusion, the author must assume that policy makers in Country Y will not oppose these upper limits—or, at least, that they will not oppose them as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Hi AndrewN ,

I was confused b/w option C and E . At the end I went with Option C.
So , I followed your approach of missing link ie I try to put the answer choices b/w the premise and conclusion .

Evidence/Premise : But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.

Missing Link :

Conclusion : the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Lets Put both C and E and Analyze

Quote:

Lets start with E

Evidence/Premise : But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.

Missing Link : Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

Conclusion : the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Policy makers don't oppose fixing upper limits as strongly as they oppose new taxes. Ok ,so Policy makers still oppose fixing upper limits.
So, even if we fix the upper limit , we may not be able to achieve reduction in air pollutant emissions because policy makers may/may not oppose the upper limits.

Lets put C

Evidence/Premise : But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.

Missing Link : Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.

Conclusion : the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

okay , So lets negate this .

Policy makers in Country Y doesnot favor reductions in air pollutant emissions. Then , in this case our conclusion will fall apart.
Hence, I feel Choice C is much more stronger assumption that Choice E because if Policy makers hate reductions then no matter what we do , our aim of achieving reduction in air pollutants will fail.

Consequently, I went with Choice C.

Please guide.

Regards

Hello, Iwillget770. Good for you for attempting the strategy I recommend, even if it is not as popular as the negation technique. The problem with answer choice (C) is that it does not supply a missing link to the argument given. That is, just because [p]olicy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions, we cannot connect the evidence or premise with the argument that the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on [these emissions]. Policy makers could or could not strongly favor such reductions, and we would get no closer to the argument. (What difference would it make, for instance, if policy makers moderately favored such reductions? You get the feeling that just about anything other than levying new taxes could follow the best way.) If we consider answer choice (E) again, notice how it bridges the gap from premise to argument:

[I]n Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting ﬁxed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on [these emissions].

This is GMAT straight-arrow logic at its best. There is no confusing verbiage, and X leads directly to Z through the missing link in Y. Do not take your sights off the exact argument or conclusion given, or many answer choices will look perfectly reasonable.

Thank you for following up, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

gmatclubot

Re: Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of [#permalink]

06 Sep 2023, 11:42

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of