The government is considering legislation that would reduce : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 18:19

### 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

# The government is considering legislation that would reduce

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1493
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

The government is considering legislation that would reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2005, 23:08
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The government is considering legislation that would reduce tax benefits for parents opening college savings funds for their children. If passed, the new laws would result in greatly decreased tax benefits for parents who open such accounts. Therefore, if the new laws pass, many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

A. For most college-bound children, their parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the only source of educational funding.

B. The legislation is being considered because many parents were misusing savings funds dedicated to their childrenâ€™sâ€™ educational costs.

C. College-bound children cannot open savings funds separately from their parents.

D. Because of decreased tax benefits, some parents will not open college savings funds for their children.

E. Parents facing the new restrictions on college funds will find other investments to dedicate to their childrenâ€™sâ€™ educational costs.
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 237
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2005, 23:24
A

A - tells me why the student cant fund his education. in line with the argument.

B - I am not concerned why the legislation is being considered.

C - doesnt mean that they dont have other ways to fund.

D - I am not sure how to negate this option

E - What am I talking abt here....if the parents can find other options - why the need of the argument ???
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 62
Location: Find me if you can
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 06:49
Hi MA,

Conclusion for the above statement is â€œTherefore, if the new laws pass, many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend.â€
_________________

Wish you all good luck
Bhimsen Joshi

Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 865
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 07:48
I will go with 'A'

'D' mentions only some parents will not open college savings funds for their children but the conclusion is "if the new laws pass, many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend".
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 284
Location: Germany
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 08:11
I'll go with (D)

The argument states that the new law would result in decreased tax benefits (for parents) from the college fund. Thereafter, it states that if the law is passed, it would have an adverse impact on the finances of many college-bound individuals.

In the absence of any other information, it follows that this financial impact can only result when parents divert their savings out of the college fund because of reduced tax benefits.
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 62
Location: Find me if you can
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 08:23
Maarverick,
How would you justify "and some would not be able to attend".

The reason "their parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the only source of educational funding. " I feel is much better than "some parents will not open college savings funds for their childre
_________________

Wish you all good luck
Bhimsen Joshi

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 284
Location: Germany
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 09:00
Tough call, Bhimsen.

Quoting a part of the argument: "Therefore, if the new laws pass, many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend."

Notice the last part - it conveys that many college-bound individuals will have difficulty in covering their college costs. Of course, many will have difficulties, but only some will not be able to attend.

Let us examine (A) "A. For most college-bound children, their parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the only source of educational funding." - if this be true - i.e. for most prospective students, if their parents' savings is the only source, then majority of them wouldn't be able to attend college. Whereas, the passage mentions that only SOME would not be able to attend college.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 284
Location: Germany
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 09:06
MA - would be great if you could post the OA with explaination.

Thanks in anticipation!
Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 227
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 09:13
I will go with A

Since these account is the only source of fund for most, a number of these students in the most group will face difficulties in paying for college. Nonetheless, that does not mean that all of these "most students" will not be able to pay for college.

For D to be true, A has to be assumed first. Just becasue people will not open these account does not mean that they will not be able to pay for college. Unless, unless the account is the key source of funding for college.

This one is tricky.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 429 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 09:34
Good question. I would go with A because D is more of an implicit conclusion rather than an assumption. If parents are unfavorably taxed, they will not open savings account for their children and hence, this is the conclusion to the new law being passed. However, the real conclusion of the argument claims that many college students will have difficulty going to college indirectly because of the new tax law affecting their parents. For this to hold, we have to assume that they depend on parents' fundings.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 62
Location: Find me if you can
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 11:06
If we chose option D then we have to make an assumption that parentsâ€™ savings account is the primary source of students funding. Which is explicitly stated in option A.

Hence A.

I agree with Maaverick that MA should reveal the OA as soon as possibleâ€¦

_________________

Wish you all good luck
Bhimsen Joshi

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1493
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 14:12
I am also not agree with OA, which is D. the logic behind D is that the argument assumes that a lower number of parents will open savings accounts, which will lead directly to less available funding for their childrenâ€™s college costs.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 284
Location: Germany
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 14:17
Thanks for the OA, Ma. I quote my explaination once again - hopefully to clarify the basics of my reasoning.

"In the absence of any other information, it follows that this financial impact can only result when parents divert their savings out of the college fund because of reduced tax benefits."

This was a tough one for sure!
Director
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 905
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 17:23
After reading thoroughly, A and D sounds the same but note the subtle difference between savings account (used in A) and college savings fund (used in D).
I hope this explains the difference betweeen A and D though regardless of the similarities
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 488
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 22:31
i am still not convinced that D is the OA. A seems right to me.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 429 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2005, 23:14
In hindsight, I would have to agree with D as best. A says that parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the only source of educational funding. This is too strong an assumption. Those savings accounts might be the most important and single largest source of funding but not necessarily the only one. If we negate A and say that there are other sources of funding although parents' funding accounts for 90% of student funding, a lack of the former can certainly endanger student access to colleges: We negated the assumption but yet, the argument still holds together. Hence, A is NOT an assumption.

Negate D and say that because of decreased tax benefits, some parents will open college savings funds for their children, this totally rips the argument apart. D wins for sure.

Going back to the basics and trying to negate the assumption is a great trick on these question types.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

03 Jan 2005, 23:14
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Our legislature is considering passing legislation to ban skateboardin 3 19 Mar 2016, 08:01
5 U.S. Environmental Advocate: The government must consider legislation 5 08 Jul 2015, 08:04
65 Some of our federal legislators are opposed to government 34 08 Sep 2010, 23:13
Legislators in New Victoria are debating a plan to reduce 7 11 Jul 2010, 05:02
To reduce costs, a company is considering a drastic 6 25 Nov 2009, 07:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by