Senator: The average per capita after tax income for : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 18 Jan 2017, 02:19

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Senator: The average per capita after tax income for

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 40
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 129 [1] , given: 7

Senator: The average per capita after tax income for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 10:59
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (02:22) correct 44% (01:25) wrong based on 232 sessions

Senator: The average per capita after tax income for residents of Eastbury is $30,105. 2 years ago, it was 11% lower. This can be directly attributed to the comprehensive set of tax cuts that I helped get approved in Congress. Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the conclusion drawn by the senator ? A. The average per capita after tax income for the residents of Eastbury who fall below poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years. B. The senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts. C. The number of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years. D. The federal tax rose 6% during the 4 years prior to the implementation of the tax cuts. E. A recent change in the estate laws did not substantially increase the average per capita before tax income of the residents of Eastbury. In my Opinion Answer should be C Conclusion: Tax cuts have resulted in the increase average per capita income, which was 11% lower So the thought process which i took was Average per capita income = Total income / No of residents Avg per capita income could have also increased if no of residents would have decreased so if we ascertain that there was no substantial change in the no of residents/ population then it is strengthening the conclusion. So i chose Option C Please explain why Option C is wrong and Option E is correct, as I find both are correct in this argument, as they both strengthen the argument. [Reveal] Spoiler: OA If you have any questions you can ask an expert New! Manager Joined: 04 Jun 2010 Posts: 113 Concentration: General Management, Technology Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2013 GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V35 GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V41 Followers: 14 Kudos [?]: 237 [0], given: 43 Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink] ### Show Tags 20 Sep 2010, 11:27 sachinrelan wrote: Senator: The average per capita after tax income for residents of Eastbury is$30,105. 2 years ago, it was 11% lower. This can be directly attributed to the comprehensive set of tax cuts that I helped get approved in Congress.

Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the conclusion drawn by the senator ?

A. The average per capita after tax income for the residents of Eastbury who fall below poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years.
B. The senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts.
C. The number of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years.
D. The federal tax rose 6% during the 4 years prior to the implementation of the tax cuts.
E. A recent change in the estate laws did not substantially increase the average per capita before tax income of the residents of Eastbury.

In my Opinion Answer should be C

Conclusion: Tax cuts have resulted in the increase average per capita income, which was 11% lower

So the thought process which i took was

Average per capita income = Total income / No of residents

Avg per capita income could have also increased if no of residents would have decreased so if we ascertain that there was no substantial change in the no of residents/ population then it is strengthening the conclusion. So i chose Option C

Please explain why Option C is wrong and Option E is correct, as I find both are correct in this argument, as they both strengthen the argument.

Well I agree with you that this a somewhat tricky question. IMO C is wrong because the question clearly states that the income 2 years ago and now is per capita meaning that according to this data the number of residents is somewhat irrelevant. The comparison is between the averages. Also note that in order to strengthen the senator statement you should refer to the tax cuts because this is part of his conclusion. If there was no other answer that mentioned the tax cuts and that strengthened his argument, maybe than you could consider C.
Also pay attention to the number of logical steps you had to take in order to come up with the conclusion that C strengthens the argument, this is a clear warning sign. The fewer the steps the better.

Hope that helps
_________________

Consider Kudos if my post helped you. Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My TOEFL Debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-toefl-experience-99884.html
My GMAT Debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-730-10-luck-20-skill-15-concentrated-power-of-will-104473.html

Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 76
Location: chennai
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 11:47
Senator: The average per capita after tax income for residents of Eastbury is $30,105. 2 years ago, it was 11% lower. This can be directly attributed to the comprehensive set of tax cuts that I helped get approved in Congress. Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the conclusion drawn by the senator ? Synopsis: After Comprehensive tax cut --- Per capita income after tax increased we need to strengthen it. Premise + Assumption -------> Conclusion 2 years ago per capita income after t was 11% lower + ( Assumption)---> Per capita income after tax increased A)The average per capita after tax income for the residents of Eastbury who fall below poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years. - this tells above " people who fall below poverty line ". - Wrong answer. B)The senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts.- Junck Answer c)The number of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years.- we dont need to consider the no of residents. d)The federal tax rose 6% during the 4 years prior to the implementation of the tax cuts.- Nothing to do with it. e)A recent change in the estate laws did not substantially increase the average per capita before tax income of the residents of Eastbury.- There are no other factor increased the per capita income.So only tax cuts increase the per capita income. Ms. Big Fat Panda Status: Three Down. Joined: 09 Jun 2010 Posts: 1922 Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit Followers: 447 Kudos [?]: 1977 [1] , given: 210 Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink] ### Show Tags 20 Sep 2010, 11:53 1 This post received KUDOS The per capita incomes are averages which already take into account the population. So the factor of population isn't really counted here. However, stating that some other law has NOT increased the income directly tells us that this tax cut was an important player. Hence the answer is E. This is a tricky one, though. The kind that easily tricks people. GMAT Tutor Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 1183 Followers: 418 Kudos [?]: 1505 [0], given: 4 Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink] ### Show Tags 20 Sep 2010, 12:53 sachinrelan wrote: Senator: The average per capita after tax income for residents of Eastbury is$30,105. 2 years ago, it was 11% lower. This can be directly attributed to the comprehensive set of tax cuts that I helped get approved in Congress.

Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the conclusion drawn by the senator ?

A. The average per capita after tax income for the residents of Eastbury who fall below poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years.
B. The senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts.
C. The number of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years.
D. The federal tax rose 6% during the 4 years prior to the implementation of the tax cuts.
E. A recent change in the estate laws did not substantially increase the average per capita before tax income of the residents of Eastbury.

In my Opinion Answer should be C

Conclusion: Tax cuts have resulted in the increase average per capita income, which was 11% lower

So the thought process which i took was

Average per capita income = Total income / No of residents

Avg per capita income could have also increased if no of residents would have decreased so if we ascertain that there was no substantial change in the no of residents/ population then it is strengthening the conclusion. So i chose Option C

Please explain why Option C is wrong and Option E is correct, as I find both are correct in this argument, as they both strengthen the argument.

I think this is a very bad question - where is it from?

We know that the per capita after-tax income has risen over the last two years. The senator attributes this to his or her tax cuts. This is not a particularly strong argument on the surface. After-tax income can increase because taxes go down, or because pre-tax income goes up. In addition, even if taxes went down, there may have been other tax cuts besides those introduced by the senator that are primarily responsible. Further, the average per capita income could change because the population changed in some way; perhaps there was an influx of high-income earners moving to Eastbury, or an exodus of low-income earners.

By POE we can work out what answer the question designer intends to be correct. A and D talk about time periods irrelevant to the argument (we're only concerned with what has happened over the last two years). B is entirely irrelevant.

C does not appreciably strengthen nor weaken the argument. If the population had increased, say, then not only would the number of people change, but so would the total income earned by Eastbury residents. We'd need to know something about how much these new people earned in order to determine what effect they would have on the per capita income; if they were all earning $1,000,000 per year, then the per capita income would go up, but if they were all unemployed and earning$0 per year, then per capita income would go down. In that C rules out an alternative explanation (change in population) for the increase in per capita income, it strengthens the argument, but only in a very insignificant way.

E is also a bad answer here. While we do want to know that average income has not risen substantially if we want to strengthen the argument, we have no compelling reason to think that estate laws have any significant effect on the average per capita income in Eastbury. There are dozens of reasons why average income could increase (employment rate might increase, or average wage might increase, for example); estate laws are (perhaps) just one of these, and there's nothing in the passage to make us think that estate laws are particularly important to Eastbury residents. So sure, E rules out one of the dozens of possible factors that could have led income to increase, but that alone does almost nothing to strengthen the argument. E would only strengthen the argument if it ruled out a significant alternative explanation for the facts in the stem, and it simply doesn't do that.

It's just not a good question.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 418

Kudos [?]: 1505 [0], given: 4

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 12:55
I'd add that some might interpret E to say that average income has not increased. That is not what E says. It says that the change to estate laws did not increase average income. Other factors might still have increased average income, however; E in no way rules out that possibility.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 276
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 2

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 16:45
E rules out alternate reason for increase and it's correct answer.
_________________

Trying hard to achieve something unachievable now....

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 05:42
IanStewart wrote:
I'd add that some might interpret E to say that average income has not increased. That is not what E says. It says that the change to estate laws did not increase average income. Other factors might still have increased average income, however; E in no way rules out that possibility.

Used POE to reach E. No doubt that there can be other reasons for increase in after tax per capita income, however, within the boundaries of the 5 choices, E is the only one that made sense.

Influx of high income earners or departure of low income earners can very well be the reason. However, these are not given in the choices. Hence, as far as the reader is concerned, these are not applicable.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Status: CEO in training
Affiliations: ACCA
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 70
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 2

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 06:00
Used POE to reach E. No doubt that there can be other reasons for increase in after tax per capita income, however, within the boundaries of the 5 choices, E is the only one that made sense.

Influx of high income earners or departure of low income earners can very well be the reason. However, these are not given in the choices. Hence, as far as the reader is concerned, these are not applicable.

IMO E is outside the scope of the question because it talks about estate laws and average per capita before tax (not after tax) and does not strenghten the conclusion.
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 06:09
schemer wrote:
Used POE to reach E. No doubt that there can be other reasons for increase in after tax per capita income, however, within the boundaries of the 5 choices, E is the only one that made sense.

Influx of high income earners or departure of low income earners can very well be the reason. However, these are not given in the choices. Hence, as far as the reader is concerned, these are not applicable.

IMO E is outside the scope of the question because it talks about estate laws and average per capita before tax (not after tax) and does not strenghten the conclusion.

Before tax income, in any way, is relevant to the statement.

Agreed that E is not the perfect choice, but by POE, the only one that can makes any sense. Apart from a very stretched assumption that high income earners moved in or low income earners moved out, the only other possibility is increase in before tax income. How does that happen ? Employers increased salaries, either due to good business or a law made them do it (E.g - increase in minimum wage). Since none of the choices deal with the former, we chose the one that deals with the latter. (you can't ask for fish, when they only have chicken on the menu !)

Like Ian said, a bad question.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Status: CEO in training
Affiliations: ACCA
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 70
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 2

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 06:38
This is not GMAT.
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

Re: Senator - Tax cuts [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 06:57
schemer wrote:
This is not GMAT.

?
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10530
Followers: 918

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: Senator: The average per capita after tax income for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2015, 15:28
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Senator: The average per capita after tax income for   [#permalink] 08 Jul 2015, 15:28
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 Evaluate 2: Income Tax fraud 18 10 Feb 2013, 22:18
Income Tax 4 21 Mar 2011, 04:12
5 Senator : The average per capita after-tax income for 12 28 Jan 2011, 06:06
37 For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription 53 07 Aug 2009, 05:31
Per capita consumption 7 07 Jul 2009, 07:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Senator: The average per capita after tax income for

 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®.