Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax.

B is the best.

Sonya's conclusion is called into question as smuggled cigs will not increase the goverment's revenue.

Nine years since anyone touched this question!!!!Bumping this thread up. @@jarvisR PathFinder007

Sonya's Conclusion:- government revenue from the tax will increase.

Raoul- Cigarette smoking will not decrease, but the cigarettes will be imported from some other place.

Inference:- If these are exported then government will not be benefitted from tax.

Basically, the change/ increase in tax will lead to alternate effect (getting cigarettes from other place). And, sonya's conclusion is not supported.
only option B mentioned this correctly.

Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.

Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.

Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?

Sonia states that the cigarette tax has not reduced the consumption of cigarettes but she concludes that because of the tax increase, and the constant consumption, the revenue for the government will increase. Raoul refutes this conclusion by stating that though the consumption might not decrease but even despite that the government might not earn any additional revenue because the a lot of sales will be illegal and those sales can't be taxed. Thus, Raoul is calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing out an effect of the change she did not consider. (B)

Why E is not the answer? In other words, what is the difference between B and E?

Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.

Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.

Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?

A: Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between No change and no decrease
B: calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change.
C: Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen.
D: showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect
E: pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the predicts it will have

Hi, let's focus at the conclusion of the argument by Sonya.
The conclusion is that
"so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase."

R agrees that consumption won't be affected but also points out another effect of the increase in the price of cig.'s i.e since prices are no longer the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.

Now if there is SUBSTANTIAL illegal sales of smuggled cig's than the Sonya's conclusion that govt. revenue from tax will increase is affected.

With this pre thinking let's look for the correct choice.

A. says R is questioning the support of S's conclusion that govt's revenue will increase. The support for this conclusion is that the consumption won't decrease and hence the govt.'s tax revenue will increase.

Now R is not questioning the support .He is actually questioning the conclusion that Govt.s revenue will increase by providing an alternate effect of the increase in tax.

Hence A is wrong.

B is in line with our pre thinking. Let's keep it and move on.

C is definitely not the answer because nowhere has R asked for a precedent.

D is wrong because R is arguing by showing an alternate effect(increase in the illegal sale)of an cause(increased taxes) which is questioning the S's conclusion (govt.s revenue will increase).

E. is interesting.
R is not questioning the boldness of the initiative(increase in taxes) but merely bringing in another effect of this initiative which might hinder the main conclusion that Govt.s
revenue will increase.

So B is the correct answer.

Hope it helps

GMATNinja

The typo is corrected, thanks for pointing out the discrepancy.

Dear Experts,
How do we know for sure whether Sonya's conclusion is 'cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much' or 'government revenue from the tax will increase'?

It talks about the 'SIDE effect/alternative consequence' of raising the tax ===> cigarette from other sources increased.

AjiteshArun sir,
Please evaluate my reasoning for option E.

Raoul's response that a certain initiative is not bold enough is incorrect because the initiative is the increase in cigarette tax. Raoul does not mention anywhere that they should increase the cigarette tax further to reduce the cigarette consumption. He merely provides an additional reason that what Sonya predicts will not happen.
Let me know whether my reasoning is correct or incorrect?

Thanks

Why D is incorrect?
GMATNinja Veritas

Posted from my mobile device