NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 12:08 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 12:08
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for

User avatar
watever
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 31
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 01:32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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, if true, most strengthens the conclusion drawn by the Senator?

A) The average per-capita after-tax income for residents of Eastbury who fall below the poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years.
B) The Senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts.
C) The no of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years.
D) The Federal tax rate increased 6% during the four years prior to the implementation of tax cuts.
E) A recent change in the state laws did not substantially increase the average per-capita after-tax income of the residents of Eastbury.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
ceointhemaking
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 07:41
A) The average per-capita after-tax income for residents of Eastbury who fall below the poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years.
No. Weakening...
B) The Senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts.
No. OOS
C) The no of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years.
No. OOS
D) The Federal tax rate increased 6% during the four years prior to the implementation of tax cuts.
No. OOS
E) A recent change in the state laws did not substantially increase the average per-capita after-tax income of the residents of Eastbury.
Correct. Since state tax change did not increase after-tax income, then the federal tax did.
User avatar
Professor
Director
Director
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 566
Own Kudos [?]: 176 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 09:12
betwen C and E, go with E.
User avatar
allabout
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 232
Own Kudos [?]: 74 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Germany
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 09:49
Agree with your effcient explanation, E
User avatar
giddi77
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 528
Own Kudos [?]: 257 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: USA
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 11:44
Defenitely have to agree with the explanation of ceo!

E should be it. If senator's tax cut's have to be the sole cause, there shouldn't be any other changes in the tax laws.
User avatar
andy_gr8
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 240
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Chicago
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 16:12
Its between C and E
but i m more inclined towards C...
In E ,we dont know about which laws the author is talking about..It can be any law which has no effect on taxes too
User avatar
TeHCM
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 492
Own Kudos [?]: 1122 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: CA
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 21:37
My answer is C

In C, it specifically said that the population has not drastically changed in the last 2 years.

In E, a "recent" change in law does not say anything about what happened in the last 2 years.
User avatar
shahnandan
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 240
Own Kudos [?]: 86 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Munich,Germany
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 23:01
My vote is for C.

Basically, we need to suppress any other reason which could be responsible for the increase in the per capita income. In C, we effectively rule out that reason strengthen the argument and conclude that the income increased solely as a result of the tax cuts.
User avatar
mbadownunder
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 22
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2006, 23:15
I am voting for C. Had the population drastically reduced, the per capita would have increased and hence the senator's point weakened. So if we are told that the population did not change drastically we can rule out that weakness from the senators statement and hence strengthen it.
User avatar
Bhai
VP
VP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1018
Own Kudos [?]: 728 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   23 Jan 2006, 15:58
Yes I also got C with the same reasoning.
User avatar
ps_dahiya
VP
VP
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 1490
Own Kudos [?]: 1133 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
Schools:Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
 Q50  V34
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   23 Jan 2006, 16:10
I think C

Per capita after-tax income has increased in last 2 years because of tax cuts.

Just seeing the above statement, what comes in mind: Is this the real cause of the effect? What if this is not the cause. Other cause could be

1. Earning of residents have increased in last 2 years.
2. Population of the town has decreased.
etc etc...

C negates #2 above and supports the arguments.
User avatar
watever
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 31
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink] New post   24 Jan 2006, 13:19
Much as I hate to say it, the ans is E. In fact, I marked C too in the test.

This is the OE:

Quote:
The CONCLUSION: The set of tax cuts caused the increase in after-tax income.

THE EVIDENCE: This is a classic case of concluding that a causal relationship exists (the tax cuts caused an increase in after-tax income) based only on a correlation (the tax cuts happenned before the increase)

If another cause can be shown to have contributed to the after-tax increase in income, then that would weaken the argument. By ruling out the possibility of an alternative cause (change in estate laws), the argument is strengthened.

According to OE, the no of residents (C) is irrelevant.


I agree with the OE till the pt where it says, if another cause can be shown to have contributed to the after-tax increase in income, then that would weaken the argument. Thus if the question asked for a weakening statement and supplied change in estate laws as a possible reason for increase of after-tax income, that could have weakened the argument as it clearly gives another possible explanation. However, the opposite is not true. There could be a 1000 other causes why after-tax income increased. E does not conclusively exclude all of them. C is obviously relevant as if population is constant, then a good reason for income increase might be decrease in taxes.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink]
24 Jan 2006, 13:19
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions