It is currently 20 Apr 2018, 11:11

### 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

# 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 13 Jun 2015
Posts: 11
2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2015, 09:25
3
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

84% (01:23) correct 16% (01:24) wrong based on 1604 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 3, Page 502
2017 GMAT Official Guide, Question 4

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.

(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.

(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation

(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.

(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 151
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2015, 11:30
4
KUDOS
Plan--- reducing traffic congestion in the long term.
How to achieve that?
Answer is --- People will drive less. But---

Skeptics say that people will not drive less.

Now, how can the plan be successful when these skeptics are also right?

That means-- In the long run traffic congestion will somehow reduce while people still don't change the driving habits.

Option A says that. The extra revenue that govt will get will be used to make the public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.

(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.-- Not an issue at all.

(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation-------- Passage is about the province not about "Neighborhoods"

(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.------ We already know that they can't change the habit. How will they compensate the extra cost is not the issue at all. This option is not talking about reducing congestion.

(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation. ---------- This is true for the people before imposing the tax also. We are concerned about the after effect of tax. Nothing has been given about the after effect.
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 241
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2015, 13:53
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 3, Page 502

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

Explanation

Question Type: Strengthen (government's plan)
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Taxes up -> Drive less.
Missing Information: A way to enable car reliant people to get to jobs and stores
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that reinforces the missing information.

Analysis: The critics are pointing out that raising the gas tax has a big problem: most people have no other way to get to jobs and stores without driving. To strengthen the government's proposal, and show that it is likely to succeed in reducing traffic, we need to find a way to overcome that hurdle.

A) Yes! Here we go. This option shuts the critics down. A explains that the revenue from the higher tax will be used to establish public transit for those people to their jobs and stores.

B) Out of Focus. If many residents switch to fuel-efficient cars, that's not helping the right problem. That's nice that a greater adoption rate of fuel-efficient cars would help air pollution, but the problem we need to address is traffic congestion. If there were just as many cars on the road, fuel efficient, or not, does nothing to address the congestion problem.

C) 180. This option attempts to make things tougher for the government's plan if 1) Gasoline prices have been underpriced, and 2) The province has many car reliant neighborhoods. Who is this option designed to punish? Those who lost track of which party we're trying to help. Not the critics, but rather the government. Gone.

D) 180. This option does the opposite of what we need. It shows that the higher tax won't reduce traffic, but instead cause people to look to save money elsewhere (and still drive as much).

E) Out of Focus. Yes, this option is on the government's side of the fence (acknowledging that traffic is a big problem), but we don't need support for the notion that traffic is bad. That fact is already established in the prompt since the government wants to reduce traffic. In short, this option is reinforcing the wrong aspect of the right issue. We need to help find a way that the government plan will work, not that the plan is needed. Gone.

_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Current Student
Joined: 03 Apr 2015
Posts: 24
Schools: ISB '16 (A)
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2015, 04:00
EMPOWERgmatMax wrote:
2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 3, Page 502

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

Explanation

Question Type: Strengthen (government's plan)
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Taxes up -> Drive less.
Missing Information: A way to enable car reliant people to get to jobs and stores
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that reinforces the missing information.

Analysis: The critics are pointing out that raising the gas tax has a big problem: most people have no other way to get to jobs and stores without driving. To strengthen the government's proposal, and show that it is likely to succeed in reducing traffic, we need to find a way to overcome that hurdle.

A) Yes! Here we go. This option shuts the critics down. A explains that the revenue from the higher tax will be used to establish public transit for those people to their jobs and stores.

B) Out of Focus. If many residents switch to fuel-efficient cars, that's not helping the right problem. That's nice that a greater adoption rate of fuel-efficient cars would help air pollution, but the problem we need to address is traffic congestion. If there were just as many cars on the road, fuel efficient, or not, does nothing to address the congestion problem.

C) 180. This option attempts to make things tougher for the government's plan if 1) Gasoline prices have been underpriced, and 2) The province has many car reliant neighborhoods. Who is this option designed to punish? Those who lost track of which party we're trying to help. Not the critics, but rather the government. Gone.

D) 180. This option does the opposite of what we need. It shows that the higher tax won't reduce traffic, but instead cause people to look to save money elsewhere (and still drive as much).

E) Out of Focus. Yes, this option is on the government's side of the fence (acknowledging that traffic is a big problem), but we don't need support for the notion that traffic is bad. That fact is already established in the prompt since the government wants to reduce traffic. In short, this option is reinforcing the wrong aspect of the right issue. We need to help find a way that the government plan will work, not that the plan is needed. Gone.

Hi EMPOWERgmatMax,

Yes I agree, A is the best available option.

But on scutinizing it further, I infer that Option A talks about the revenue being generated from the raise in gasoline tax can be used for the betterment of public transportation. But then, the govt. is raising the tax with the motive that people will stop using their cars and this in turn will reduce the gasoline consumption. Then, how will the govt. generate the extra revenue that option A talks about?

Kindly confirm if I am thinking on the right lines?

Regards
Sidhant Sharma
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 241
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2015, 23:11
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
sidhant10 wrote:
EMPOWERgmatMax wrote:
2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 3, Page 502

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

Explanation

Question Type: Strengthen (government's plan)
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Taxes up -> Drive less.
Missing Information: A way to enable car reliant people to get to jobs and stores
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that reinforces the missing information.

Analysis: The critics are pointing out that raising the gas tax has a big problem: most people have no other way to get to jobs and stores without driving. To strengthen the government's proposal, and show that it is likely to succeed in reducing traffic, we need to find a way to overcome that hurdle.

A) Yes! Here we go. This option shuts the critics down. A explains that the revenue from the higher tax will be used to establish public transit for those people to their jobs and stores.

B) Out of Focus. If many residents switch to fuel-efficient cars, that's not helping the right problem. That's nice that a greater adoption rate of fuel-efficient cars would help air pollution, but the problem we need to address is traffic congestion. If there were just as many cars on the road, fuel efficient, or not, does nothing to address the congestion problem.

C) 180. This option attempts to make things tougher for the government's plan if 1) Gasoline prices have been underpriced, and 2) The province has many car reliant neighborhoods. Who is this option designed to punish? Those who lost track of which party we're trying to help. Not the critics, but rather the government. Gone.

D) 180. This option does the opposite of what we need. It shows that the higher tax won't reduce traffic, but instead cause people to look to save money elsewhere (and still drive as much).

E) Out of Focus. Yes, this option is on the government's side of the fence (acknowledging that traffic is a big problem), but we don't need support for the notion that traffic is bad. That fact is already established in the prompt since the government wants to reduce traffic. In short, this option is reinforcing the wrong aspect of the right issue. We need to help find a way that the government plan will work, not that the plan is needed. Gone.

Hi EMPOWERgmatMax,

Yes I agree, A is the best available option.

But on scutinizing it further, I infer that Option A talks about the revenue being generated from the raise in gasoline tax can be used for the betterment of public transportation. But then, the govt. is raising the tax with the motive that people will stop using their cars and this in turn will reduce the gasoline consumption. Then, how will the govt. generate the extra revenue that option A talks about?

Kindly confirm if I am thinking on the right lines?

Regards
Sidhant Sharma

Hi sidhant10,

I REALLY like your critical thinking here: If the government plans to levy a tax to reduce driving, wouldn't its success also limit the amount of gas sold that can be taxed?

Here's why that's a non-factor: I think you might be blurring your question types, and treating A as though it were an answer option for an inference question. No, it can't be inferred from the prompt that A is guaranteed to work, BUT we are not dealing with an Inference question. This is a Strengthen question, and the question is says

"In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?"

So the question is guaranteeing the outcome in option A, and it's because we're told that A is true that we know that the transit project can happen. That ultimately means that since it's a given, we need not infer anything about the government's ability to follow through on (or the feasibility of) the mass transit project, nor are we asked to.
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Posts: 158
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 05-10-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2015, 23:47
EMPOWERgmatMax wrote:
sidhant10 wrote:
EMPOWERgmatMax wrote:
2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 3, Page 502

A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

Explanation

Question Type: Strengthen (government's plan)
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Taxes up -> Drive less.
Missing Information: A way to enable car reliant people to get to jobs and stores
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that reinforces the missing information.

Analysis: The critics are pointing out that raising the gas tax has a big problem: most people have no other way to get to jobs and stores without driving. To strengthen the government's proposal, and show that it is likely to succeed in reducing traffic, we need to find a way to overcome that hurdle.

A) Yes! Here we go. This option shuts the critics down. A explains that the revenue from the higher tax will be used to establish public transit for those people to their jobs and stores.

B) Out of Focus. If many residents switch to fuel-efficient cars, that's not helping the right problem. That's nice that a greater adoption rate of fuel-efficient cars would help air pollution, but the problem we need to address is traffic congestion. If there were just as many cars on the road, fuel efficient, or not, does nothing to address the congestion problem.

C) 180. This option attempts to make things tougher for the government's plan if 1) Gasoline prices have been underpriced, and 2) The province has many car reliant neighborhoods. Who is this option designed to punish? Those who lost track of which party we're trying to help. Not the critics, but rather the government. Gone.

D) 180. This option does the opposite of what we need. It shows that the higher tax won't reduce traffic, but instead cause people to look to save money elsewhere (and still drive as much).

E) Out of Focus. Yes, this option is on the government's side of the fence (acknowledging that traffic is a big problem), but we don't need support for the notion that traffic is bad. That fact is already established in the prompt since the government wants to reduce traffic. In short, this option is reinforcing the wrong aspect of the right issue. We need to help find a way that the government plan will work, not that the plan is needed. Gone.

Hi EMPOWERgmatMax,

Yes I agree, A is the best available option.

But on scutinizing it further, I infer that Option A talks about the revenue being generated from the raise in gasoline tax can be used for the betterment of public transportation. But then, the govt. is raising the tax with the motive that people will stop using their cars and this in turn will reduce the gasoline consumption. Then, how will the govt. generate the extra revenue that option A talks about?

Kindly confirm if I am thinking on the right lines?

Regards
Sidhant Sharma

Hi sidhant10,

I REALLY like your critical thinking here: If the government plans to levy a tax to reduce driving, wouldn't its success also limit the amount of gas sold that can be taxed?

Here's why that's a non-factor: I think you might be blurring your question types, and treating A as though it were an answer option for an inference question. No, it can't be inferred from the prompt that A is guaranteed to work, BUT we are not dealing with an Inference question. This is a Strengthen question, and the question is says

"In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?"

So the question is guaranteeing the outcome in option A, and it's because we're told that A is true that we know that the transit project can happen. That ultimately means that since it's a given, we need not infer anything about the government's ability to follow through on (or the feasibility of) the mass transit project, nor are we asked to.

Agreed..!!
-Adding my 2 cents to this discussion. There is no where mentioned in the argument that people will stop driving immediately. While thinking that tax raise will actually decrease the government revenue, we are assuming that the GOAL to reduce traffic congestion in not long-term.
And that`s why fall into the trap.
_________________

Please give Kudos to the post if you liked.

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 311
Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.76
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2015, 08:35
Somehow though B was the option
But explanations given show A is correct, which now sounds good
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2015
Posts: 52
Location: United States (MD)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GMAT 2: 620 Q49 V27
WE: Marketing (Consumer Products)
OG 2016-CR-Q3: A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2016, 11:59
A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic-congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In the light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation.
D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

Hi Experts

Here first I post my analysis previous to my queries:

Logical structure:
Argument is providing contrasting views about a plan

Premise 1: Gov plan: increase in gas tax → people will drive less → reduce traffic (long term)
Premise 2 (Contrasting view): Skeptics: Most people live in areas where cars only mean viable of transportation to jobs, stores.
Conclusion: Therefore, higher gas prices cannot greatly change people’s driving habits.

Question esteem: Strenghten premise 1 (Government plan)

Per my understanding this question is not asking to weaken the conclusion or the logical structure of the whole argument. Instead, is asking to support one of the premises (Government’s plan), while still considering the contrasting view of skeptics.: “In the light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?”

Pre-thinking
•Government believes that, in the long term, the increase in the gas price tax will successfully reduce traffic.
•Government believes that cars are responsible for traffic and no other transportations.
•Skeptics believe that nowadays, there are no other ways of transportation available where most people live to go to jobs and stores than cars (cars needed for transportation).
•Skeptics believe that even with increase in gas prices tax, people will still drive cars because of limited transportation.

A) Correct. This answer supports Government’s plan while still considering skeptics view. Even if the increase in gas tax prices is not effective nowadays, there will be a switch of driving habits in the long term and thus reducing traffic: Nowdays people will pay the higher gas price tax (supports or considers Skeptics view), but if the revenue will be use to implement public transportation, there will be a switch in driving habits and therefore traffic will be reduced in the long term (Supports Government plans).

B) Opossite. This option weakens the Government plans because people will still driving their cars (fuel efficient or not) in the long term, thus traffic will be still be a problem.

C) Opossite. Since gas has been underprice, we could think that people still can afford an increase, and thus they will still keep driving, specially if there is no other means of transportation.

D) Opposite. This option facilitates an strategy that will allow people keep driving without expending more money.

E) OFS. Not talking about how the increase in gas price will affect traffic.

1) Is my understanding of the question stem correct? Is this question actually asking to support one of the premises and not the conclusion of the argument?

2) Is each analysis of the answer choices correct? Did I refuse B, C, D and E for the right reasons?

Thanks a lot!

Rumi
Manager
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 88
Schools: HKU MBA"19 (A)
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2016, 16:45
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
EMPOWERgmatMax -
Can I say that it strengthens the possibility that the outcome will happen.

As per my understanding all strengthen and weaken are assumption questions. The missing assumption has to be linked in the argument.
To prove an assumption we need one of the 3 below mentioned
1. Possibility
2. Relevance
3.No other outcome.

1 is satisfied here. So would i be correct if i look at the question like this, Because what works for assumption could/should work for strengthen
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 241
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2016, 21:26
lee2390 wrote:
EMPOWERgmatMax -
Can I say that it strengthens the possibility that the outcome will happen.

As per my understanding all strengthen and weaken are assumption questions. The missing assumption has to be linked in the argument.
To prove an assumption we need one of the 3 below mentioned
1. Possibility
2. Relevance
3.No other outcome.

1 is satisfied here. So would i be correct if i look at the question like this, Because what works for assumption could/should work for strengthen

Hi lee2390,

I like your summary. It's clean. With point 3, instead of "No other outcome", it's "No other factors" (causal arguments assume no other factors).

To your specific question: all proposals assume that the proposal/plan is possible (we have capacity for the proposal/plan). So now, going back to my analysis earlier, let's take a look at the bold component:

"To strengthen the government's proposal, and show that it is likely to succeed in reducing traffic, we need to find a way to overcome that hurdle."

As you can see, we are precisely looking to reinforce the notion that this proposal has the capacity to do what seeks to. In that sense, we're doing the exact same thing. You're just using different words to describe it. Nice work!
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Manager
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 88
Schools: HKU MBA"19 (A)
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2016, 17:16
EMPOWERgmatMax

So i reckon you would agree that understanding and narrowing down the answers for strengthen/weaken/evaluate questions can be done via the tactics as mentioned by you in the assumptioon module.
I ask this question because many times i have figured out that if i follow the assumption strategy i would be able to get the correct answer.

This this answer could be done by POE blindly but i thought of going one step further.(Just to get to the mark where i want to )
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 440
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2016, 21:59
A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

1> carpooling
2> may be stores will establish closeby seeing the higher gasoline prices because they knew that consumers will prefer that option.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems. : Evewn if so, will that impact traffic, no.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation => but even if so, does this give any info, that in future condition will improve , no.

So A.
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 241
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2016, 13:56
lee2390 wrote:
EMPOWERgmatMax

So i reckon you would agree that understanding and narrowing down the answers for strengthen/weaken/evaluate questions can be done via the tactics as mentioned by you in the assumptioon module.
I ask this question because many times i have figured out that if i follow the assumption strategy i would be able to get the correct answer.

This this answer could be done by POE blindly but i thought of going one step further.(Just to get to the mark where i want to )

Hi lee2390,

Although I COMPLETELY see the temptation to do so, don't. The GMAT test-writer team is way too talented for us to cut any corners, and there is no extra credit for finishing early. That said, I'm glad to see that you're already spotting broader patterns. That will help you arrive at the correct option faster without cutting any corners, and with a greater confidence quotient.
_________________

"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

★★★★★ GMAT Club Verified Reviews for EMPOWERgmat & Special Discount

GMAT Club Verbal Advantage EMPOWERgmat Critical Reasoning Question Pack

Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 51
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2017, 03:48
Conclusion: the Government wants to reduce congestion in the long term.

Premise: the Government wants to do that by raising the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less.

Counter Premise: However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

Pre-thinking: If we want to reduce the traffic congestion, we need to look for a reason, which would tell us clearly that people will stop using cars when the taxes are increased.
It could be reasons like people cannot afford such increase in tax and hence would either start car-pooling or use buses or even start walking. Keeping this in mind, let us look at the answer options.

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.[This is clearly the correct answer because it tells us that an alternate means of transportation will be made available and hence that would give incentive to people to drive less and hence the congestion would reduce.]

(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.[Switching to a fuel-efficient car will not reduce the number of cars on the street and hence the number of people driving the car would not be reduced. So, this cannot be the answer.]

(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation. [This tells us the reason why a lot of people use cars. It does not tell us that if the increase in taxes will stop people from using cars! Hence, this cannot be the answer.]

(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.[This is clearly out of Scope! Driving habits are not in question here.]

(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.[Trafice Congestion is a problem, but that is not deterring the people from still using cars. Also, this does not tell us why the govt.'s plan would be successful. If traffic congestion is really a problem for people driving cars, that means they do not have any alternate viable option to travel, thus, even if the government increases the taxes, that would not deter the people to drive less. Hence this cannot be the correct answer.]
_________________

Work Hard! Have Fun! Create History!

Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 261
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2017, 12:19
"A" is the correct answer choice - If the tax will fund these public transit improvements, then far more people will have a viable means of transportation other than driving, undermining the basis of the skeptics’ objection.

Situation: Govt plans to raise gasoline tax in order to (a) reduce traffic congestion (b) discourage people from driving. Skeptics says, people are dependent heavily on cars as there are no other means of transportation.

Aim: Look for piece of information due to which traffic congestion will reduce, keeping skeptics point in mind. Pre-thinking - Alternate such as carpools, public transport, etc..
_________________

Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 113
Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2018, 07:03
A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?

(A) The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

This is a strenghten the argument question.

This is a strengthen the argument question.
Like weaken, strengthen questions also require us to isolate the conclusion. As we will be looking for the answer that makes our belief stronger on the premise-conclusion relationship such as analogies, survey, reports, statistical data etc.
Protect the missing information
a) by keeping any option that fills the gap
b) by eliminating the answer that attacks the missing information

Conclusion : Raise the gasoline tax -- people drive less -- reduce traffic congestion in the long term.
We need an answer choice that makes this conclusion valid and stronger.

B talks about air pollution and other problems which is out of scope. We are talking about traffic congestion.
C out of acope.
D is helping becuase people are still driving by compensating other expenses which will ot help in reducing the traffic congestion .
E is also out of scope.

A wins! Public transportation will help to reduce no of cars on the road, consequently reducing the traffic congestion.

Re: 2016 OG Q3 - A provincial government plans to raise   [#permalink] 13 Apr 2018, 07:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by