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

It is currently 21 Oct 2019, 00:39

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 new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1366
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
CAT Tests
A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 28 May 2017, 21:26
2
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (02:07) correct 37% (02:10) wrong based on 236 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college attendance rate gives local public universities tax incentives to encourage acceptance of a greater percentage of applicants from within the state. Legislators supporting the new law believe that it will not only allow more students from the state to obtain further education, but also provide a strong financial boost to in-state universities.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest critique of the legislators' proposal?

(A) Public universities receive the majority of their funding through state-sponsored initiatives.
(B) Public universities are generally less expensive than private universities.
(C) Many college applicants find that relocating to a new state is the single largest obstacle to attending college.
(D) Public universities feel that having a broader applicant pool is more financially beneficial than the incentives provided under the new law.
(E) Applications to universities within the state reached an all-time high for the previous academic year.

Source: Powerscore CR Bible

Query: according to me C should be OA.
Where I flawed: I took legislator's proposal as belief in last sentence of argument. Can you help what exactly are we trying to weaken?
Legislator's belief of first sentence?

_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!

Originally posted by adkikani on 28 May 2017, 18:54.
Last edited by broall on 28 May 2017, 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question
Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Apr 2017
Posts: 20
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V36
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)
Re: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 May 2017, 22:15
IMO it's D

The logic to be weaken is
New tax law incentive>more students from state> financial boost.

1. Doesn't change any situation with the new change.
2. Out of scope
3. It gets better for students but doesn't say anything for or against the financial situation.
4. Broader application pool is financially more beneficial than tax incentives. Restricting it to state will hurt that. So it's the critique against legistrators' logic.
5. Same as 3

Sent from my BLN-L22 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1366
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
CAT Tests
Re: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2017, 17:08
Hi Experts,
I am having tough time comprehending this argument.
Here are my specific queries:
a. Is first statement a fact? Can I dispute it?
b. Goal is to weaken the conclusion (or belief): the two reasons that legislators cite for supporting new tax laws are being received positively by public universities.

Had this been a bold face question, how would you have isolated the conclusion and on what basis?

Thanks.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1332
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2017, 00:04
1
adkikani wrote:
Hi Experts,
I am having tough time comprehending this argument.
Here are my specific queries:
a. Is first statement a fact? Can I dispute it?
b. Goal is to weaken the conclusion (or belief): the two reasons that legislators cite for supporting new tax laws are being received positively by public universities.

Had this been a bold face question, how would you have isolated the conclusion and on what basis?

Thanks.


Premise: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college attendance rate gives local public universities tax incentives to encourage acceptance of a greater percentage of applicants from within the state .

Conclusion: Legislators supporting the new law believe that it will not only allow more students from the state to obtain further education, but also provide a strong financial boost to in-state universities.

The question asks which choice weakens the conclusion.

(A) Public universities receive the majority of their funding through state-sponsored initiatives.
This choice strengthens the conclusion. Tax incentives will help these colleges boost their financial state.

(B) Public universities are generally less expensive than private universities.
Public universities are less expensive because they are offered tax incentives. Hence, this choice strengthens the conclusion.

(C) Many college applicants find that relocating to a new state is the single largest obstacle to attending college.
This choice strengthens the conclusion. College applicants will perfer local state colleges. As a result, tax incentives will help local state colleges attract more applicants.

(D) Public universities feel that having a broader applicant pool is more financially beneficial than the incentives provided under the new law.
Correct. In case that local public colleges prefer having a broader applicant pool, they will try to attract more international students rather than local students. This will make the policy fail to reach it's aim.

(E) Applications to universities within the state reached an all-time high for the previous academic year.
This choice is irrelevant to the argument.
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 207
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2019, 22:31
Can anyone please explain how option E is incorrect?

Option E says the application reached an ALL Time high

Does all time high mean till that point and not beyond?

Or does it mean in the given period, which would include period after introduction of new tax laws?

Had the option been that:

The application last year was highest colleges could have?

Would it be weakener?

My basis for saying this is: if already 100% of people have applied to the colleges, even with tax incentives new students would not come right?

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
User avatar
P
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 180
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2019, 13:37
3
rish2708 wrote:
Can anyone please explain how option E is incorrect?

Option E says the application reached an ALL-Time high

Does all-time high mean till that point and not beyond?

Or does it mean in the given period, which would include the period after the introduction of new tax laws?

Had the option been that:

The application last year was the highest colleges could have?

Would it be a weakener?

My basis for saying this is: if already 100% of people have applied to the colleges, even with tax incentives new students would not come right?

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device

Your reasoning is correct that if already 100% of people have applied to the colleges, even with tax incentives new students would not come.
However, Let's Deep-Dive!

(E) Applications to universities within the state reached an all-time high for the previous academic year.
    Meaning - In the previous academic year, the Applications# increased to an all-time high.

    Let's say:
      For the past academic years except for the last year, the Applications# have been hovering around 30%.
      Last year, the Applications# reached an all-time high, a WHOPPING record of 35%.
        - Notice, how GMAT plays with the language, forcing a test-taker to assume the favorability in the sea of ambiguity by using phrases such as all-time high, record-breaking, unprecedented, etc.

      A classic move by GMAT!

    Though the Applications# is the BEST so far, It STILL leaves a TON of room for ambiguity whether the Applications# have touched the ceiling, i.e., 100%.
    Nowhere in the option-choice, it states that there is NO room for any more number of applications.
    E simply states that in the previous academic year, the Applications# reached an all-time high. - CANNOT infer about the 100% ceiling.

TakeAway:
    Choosing E by thinking that
      Applications# reached an all-time high -----------> NO room for further intake/applications
    is an inference mistake of the wrong answer choice. - An unintended, yet costly mistake in GMAT.

_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The trouble is, you think you have time.” – Buddha
Giving Kudos is the best way to encourage and appreciate people.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 207
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2019, 19:16
Xylan wrote:
rish2708 wrote:
Can anyone please explain how option E is incorrect?

Option E says the application reached an ALL-Time high

Does all-time high mean till that point and not beyond?

Or does it mean in the given period, which would include the period after the introduction of new tax laws?

Had the option been that:

The application last year was the highest colleges could have?

Would it be a weakener?

My basis for saying this is: if already 100% of people have applied to the colleges, even with tax incentives new students would not come right?

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device

Your reasoning is correct that if already 100% of people have applied to the colleges, even with tax incentives new students would not come.
However, Let's Deep-Dive!

(E) Applications to universities within the state reached an all-time high for the previous academic year.
    Meaning - In the previous academic year, the Applications# increased to an all-time high.

    Let's say:
      For the past academic years except for the last year, the Applications# have been hovering around 30%.
      Last year, the Applications# reached an all-time high, a WHOPPING record of 35%.
        - Notice, how GMAT plays with the language, forcing a test-taker to assume the favorability in the sea of ambiguity by using phrases such as all-time high, record-breaking, unprecedented, etc.

      A classic move by GMAT!

    Though the Applications# is the BEST so far, It STILL leaves a TON of room for ambiguity whether the Applications# have touched the ceiling, i.e., 100%.
    Nowhere in the option-choice, it states that there is NO room for any more number of applications.
    E simply states that in the previous academic year, the Applications# reached an all-time high. - CANNOT infer about the 100% ceiling.

TakeAway:
    Choosing E by thinking that
      Applications# reached an all-time high -----------> NO room for further intake/applications
    is an inference mistake of the wrong answer choice. - An unintended, yet costly mistake in GMAT.


Thanks a lot for making this subtle difference clear.

I get it now :)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college   [#permalink] 24 Apr 2019, 19:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A new state-sponsored tax law aimed at increasing the state’s college

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





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