GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Aug 2018, 02:58

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 88
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2017, 10:52
Hello expert, could you please explain why option 'e' is wrong?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1897
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2017, 14:53
VKat wrote:
Hello expert, could you please explain why option 'e' is wrong?

Quote:
(E) Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases.

The question asks, "Which of the following must be true if the above conclusion is to be properly drawn?" The conclusion is that the tax credit has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes. It doesn't matter whether tax credits are usually ineffective. If, on the other hand, tax credits are usually effective but do not influence consumers to purchase homes, the conclusion can still be properly drawn.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Status: Turning my handicaps into assets
Joined: 09 Apr 2017
Posts: 120
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 May 2018, 12:29
But conclusion says: Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes. So, presence or absence of the law doesn't matter. Then why absence of the law would yield positive result i.e sales wouldn't drop significantly? According to D presence or absence of the law DOES matter that presence of the law generates negative consequence. What I am missing here? GMATNinja, your help would be much appreciated.
_________________

If time was on my side, I'd still have none to waste......

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Posts: 44
CAT Tests
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2018, 07:24
GMATninja can you please help how to eliminate E?
_________________

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take..

KUDOS Please..!!

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Apr 2018
Posts: 23
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2018, 08:05
1
Only option D 'Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower' eliminates the weakness (the alternate explanation for the decrease in sales) in the argument and thus it must be true in order to draw the conclusion that 'law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes'.
_________________

Please give me KUDOS if my post helps you...

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1897
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2018, 22:21
2
swathiallumalla wrote:
GMATninja can you please help how to eliminate E?

Quote:
E. Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases.

We don't care about what tax credits USUALLY do to consumers. We only care about whether this tax credit helped or hurt new home sales.

Even if tax credits are usually effective, the author would claim that they were not effective in this case, citing the decline in growth. The author's argument does not rely on (E), so it can be eliminated.

Mehemmed wrote:
But conclusion says: Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes. So, presence or absence of the law doesn't matter. Then why absence of the law would yield positive result i.e sales wouldn't drop significantly? According to D presence or absence of the law DOES matter that presence of the law generates negative consequence. What I am missing here? GMATNinja, your help would be much appreciated.

We are told that "since the law was passed, the growth in sales of newly constructed homes has dropped each year, from 15% to 10% to 5%." According to the author, this is evidence that "the law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes."

Now imagine if the law had not been passed. In that case, what if growth in sales of new homes was significantly lower? What if growth, in that case, went from 15% to 5% to 1%? Maybe without the law, sales of newly constructed homes would have even DECREASED (i.e. 15% to 0% to -15%).

Even though growth decreased each year, the law may have prevented new home sales from plummeting. If (D) were not true, then new house sales would have been significantly lower without the law, and the numbers would have been much worse than 15%-10%-5%. That would imply that the law DID have a significant effect.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 753
A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2018, 05:30
bschool83 wrote:
A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax credit to consumers who purchase a newly constructed home. The tax credit was intended to stimulate the local economy by creating a higher demand for new houses and spurring the creation of jobs in construction and design. However, since the law was passed, the growth in sales of newly constructed homes has dropped each year, from 15% to 10% to 5%. Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes.

Which of the following must be true if the above conclusion is to be properly drawn?

A. New house sales are directly tied to personal income.
B. New house sales cannot increase by more than 6% next year.
C. If the tax credit had been 50%, there would have been a larger increase in new house sales
D. Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower.
E. Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases.


hey everyone :-)

here is my reasoning :)

Between D and E, i went for D, because we dont talk about specific purchases. moreover there is no a hint that credit is offered to one product out of # of products. hence E is out. try to avoid such extremes options like E :-)

Option D, says that Without the tax credit,new house sales would not have been significantly lower. in other words, credits didnt influence the sales volume of new houses. And that is true because 30% credit didnt have effect on sales.

cheers,
D. :-)
_________________

In English I speak with a dictionary, and with people I am shy.

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 31 Aug 2016
Posts: 41
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GPA: 2.81
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2018, 03:11
Quote:
A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax credit to consumers who purchase a newly constructed home. The tax credit was intended to stimulate the local economy by creating a higher demand for new houses and spurring the creation of jobs in construction and design. However, since the law was passed, the growth in sales of newly constructed homes has dropped each year, from 15% to 10% to 5%. Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes.

This is a Cause and Effect case
The argument says "law" is not the cause for the effect "drop in sale of newly constructed homes"

So if we can further provides support for this relation, that will the answer.

Quote:
D. Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower.

This means even if the "law" was not there, the effect "drop in sales" would have been still there.
_________________

Resources
GMATNinja Webinars
GMATNinja Chats

Quant
Mixtures

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Nov 2017
Posts: 1
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2018, 10:42
bschool83 wrote:
A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax credit to consumers who purchase a newly constructed home. The tax credit was intended to stimulate the local economy by creating a higher demand for new houses and spurring the creation of jobs in construction and design. However, since the law was passed, the growth in sales of newly constructed homes has dropped each year, from 15% to 10% to 5%. Obviously, this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes.

Which of the following must be true if the above conclusion is to be properly drawn?

A. New house sales are directly tied to personal income.
B. New house sales cannot increase by more than 6% next year.
C. If the tax credit had been 50%, there would have been a larger increase in new house sales
D. Without the tax credit, new house sales would not have been significantly lower.
E. Tax credits for specific purchases are usually ineffective in influencing consumers to make those purchases.


Conclusion of the argument : "this law has had little or no effect on the sale of newly constructed homes."

My interpretation with option D
Option D means that without tax credit, new houses sales would not have been lower, which means that tax credit had a negative effect on house sales and hence it weakens the conclusion.

Can anyone please explain this...
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Apr 2018
Posts: 2
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2018, 10:19
zuberahmed wrote:
Can some one please explain why E is incorrect?



because it picks up an instance and generalizes it, which is not acceptable
Re: A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax &nbs [#permalink] 07 Aug 2018, 10:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

A law passed in Rockville three years ago allows a 30% tax

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.