|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 21
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[1] , given: 10
|
Which of the following most logically completes the passage? [#permalink]
 20 Dec 2012, 23:38
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
37% (01:56) correct
62% (01:01) wrong based on 5 sessions
Which of the following most logically completes the passage? Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pension paid to all Runagians over 65. Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians. Nevertheless, many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________. A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living Please provide your reasoning with the answer.. not sure why the answer is what it is..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Status: Edge of Extinction
Joined: 09 Sep 2012
Posts: 40
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
6
[4] , given: 29
|
Re: Complete the argument - confusing reasoning.. [#permalink]
21 Dec 2012, 01:01
4
This post received
KUDOS
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pension paid to all Runagians over 65. Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians. Nevertheless, many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________.A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income. If they relied entirely on pension for their income, they would be better off financially. Ex: $200 before, $ 240 now. So better off. Incorrect.B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check. With the increase, the pensioners are better off, because getting an amount late doesn't mean the receiver is worse off. The amount is coming in at set intervals. Ex: $200 3 weeks late before, $240 3 weeks late now. So better off. Incorrect.C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation. Even assuming the prices of goods the pensioners buy rise faster than inflation (which is negligible), this still doesn't indicate that the rise in cost of goods they buy definitely nullified the 20% rise in pension they got 2 years ago. Incorrect.D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high. Has no relationship to pensioners not being better off today than they were before the 20% rise in pensions. Incorrect.E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living. Bingo! Children would decrease their support if the pensions increased, thereby the pensioners would be no better off than they were before the pension increase. Ex: $200 before ($100 pension, $100 children), $200 now ($120 pension, $80 children). Correct.Remember: No better off financially means: Financially worse off OR at the same level.Hope this helped. Thanks for sharing. 
_________________
The only ability the GMAT is an indicator of...is the ability to do well on the GMAT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 937
Location: India
GMAT Date: 05-29-2013
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
90
[2] , given: 57
|
Re: Complete the argument - confusing reasoning.. [#permalink]
21 Dec 2012, 11:17
2
This post received
KUDOS
Zenverse wrote: Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pension paid to all Runagians over 65. Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians. Nevertheless, many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________.A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income. If they relied entirely on pension for their income, they would be better off financially. Ex: $200 before, $ 240 now. So better off. Incorrect.B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check. With the increase, the pensioners are better off, because getting an amount late doesn't mean the receiver is worse off. The amount is coming in at set intervals. Ex: $200 3 weeks late before, $240 3 weeks late now. So better off. Incorrect.C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation. Even assuming the prices of goods the pensioners buy rise faster than inflation (which is negligible), this still doesn't indicate that the rise in cost of goods they buy definitely nullified the 20% rise in pension they got 2 years ago. Incorrect.D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high. Has no relationship to pensioners not being better off today than they were before the 20% rise in pensions. Incorrect.E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living. Bingo! Children would decrease their support if the pensions increased, thereby the pensioners would be no better off than they were before the pension increase. Ex: $200 before ($100 pension, $100 children), $200 now ($120 pension, $80 children). Correct.Remember: No better off financially means: Financially worse off OR at the same level.Hope this helped. Thanks for sharing. Good Explanation Zen.......... really tough question.....Hey can you pls specify the source of the question.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 21
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Complete the argument - confusing reasoning.. [#permalink]
21 Dec 2012, 20:54
Zenverse wrote: Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pension paid to all Runagians over 65. Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians. Nevertheless, many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________.A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income. If they relied entirely on pension for their income, they would be better off financially. Ex: $200 before, $ 240 now. So better off. Incorrect.B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check. With the increase, the pensioners are better off, because getting an amount late doesn't mean the receiver is worse off. The amount is coming in at set intervals. Ex: $200 3 weeks late before, $240 3 weeks late now. So better off. Incorrect.C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation. Even assuming the prices of goods the pensioners buy rise faster than inflation (which is negligible), this still doesn't indicate that the rise in cost of goods they buy definitely nullified the 20% rise in pension they got 2 years ago. Incorrect.D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high. Has no relationship to pensioners not being better off today than they were before the 20% rise in pensions. Incorrect.E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living. Bingo! Children would decrease their support if the pensions increased, thereby the pensioners would be no better off than they were before the pension increase. Ex: $200 before ($100 pension, $100 children), $200 now ($120 pension, $80 children). Correct.Remember: No better off financially means: Financially worse off OR at the same level.Hope this helped. Thanks for sharing. I think i get it now.. the last option clearly states that if the parents were getting $100 before for "comfortable living" from their children and the pension provided them $20 after the increase, the overall income would STILL REMAIN $100 as the children would now only supplement the income with $80. Sounds good mate! cheers for the detailed reply!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Complete the argument - confusing reasoning..
[#permalink]
21 Dec 2012, 20:54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
