Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 20:44 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 20:44
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Assumption|            
User avatar
CRACKGMATNUT
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2020
Last visit: 26 May 2024
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
31
 [1]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Schools: Ivey '24 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Schools: Ivey '24 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Posts: 150
Kudos: 31
 [1]
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 30 Aug 2021, 07:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi EducationAisle

Can help negating option A?

(A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some
wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and
educational institutions as they otherwise would have

Will it be 1 or 2 or combination of 1 and 2?

1) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, NO
wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and
educational institutions as they otherwise would have

2) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some
wealthy individuals would donate as much money to charitable and
educational institutions as they otherwise would have

Both) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, NO
wealthy individuals would donate as much money to charitable and
educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 30 Aug 2021, 10:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Just (1)...right?

Basically the negation is:

1) (Even) without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, there are no wealthy individuals (who) would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have

In other words, incentives or no incentives, wealthy individuals would continue to donate money to charitable and educational institutions.

If that's the case, nothing changes: charitable and educational institutions would not have to reduce services, and no institutions would have to close their doors.

So, the conclusion is invalidated, by negating option A.
User avatar
Oppenheimer1945
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2019
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 784
Own Kudos:
639
Given Kudos: 223
Location: India
Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80
GPA: 7.81
Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80
Posts: 784
Kudos: 639
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 02 Mar 2023, 22:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
snjainpune
Hello Experts,

Could you please explain why A is correct & B and D are wrong, even though all shatter the conclusion on negating them?

Thanks.
Quote:
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwis would have.

(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.

(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.

(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.

(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.
The idea is that if wealthy individuals are no longer permitted to deduct donations from their taxes, then "many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services." This rests on the assumption that without the tax incentives, the wealthy individuals will not donate as much (choice A). As a result, those institutions would have less money and have to reduce services.

In order to draw the conclusion, wealthy individuals do not have to be the ONLY source of funding for those institutions. Even if donations from wealth individuals account for, say, half of the funding, if those donations are significantly reduced, the institutions would lose a lot of money. Thus, choice (B) can be eliminated.

Choice (D) can be eliminated for the same reason. Wealthy individuals do not have to be the ONLY individuals who make donations. Regardless, if the donations from just the wealthy individuals are reduced, the institutions would lose money and have to reduce services.

Choice (A) is the best answer.
Show more

In option B, "individuals" covers wealthy individuals as well, right? So, shouldn't this be an assumption?
User avatar
ntnsngh83
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2022
Last visit: 29 Dec 2023
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
7
 [1]
Given Kudos: 444
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Schools: IIMA '25 IIM IIM
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34
GPA: 3
WE:Operations (Energy)
Schools: IIMA '25 IIM IIM
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34
Posts: 12
Kudos: 7
 [1]
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 06 Apr 2023, 10:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.

Let's say that many charitable and educational institutes receive $50 from these donating individuals and $50 from government. If these individuals stop giving their $50, there is still a chance that government may increase their share to $100. Therefore, there will be no effect on the institutes. However, this is not true.
So, option (B) is correct.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
 [1]
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 06 May 2023, 10:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
samagra21
GMATNinja
snjainpune
Hello Experts,

Could you please explain why A is correct & B and D are wrong, even though all shatter the conclusion on negating them?

Thanks.

Quote:
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwis would have.

(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.

(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.

(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.

(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.

The idea is that if wealthy individuals are no longer permitted to deduct donations from their taxes, then "many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services." This rests on the assumption that without the tax incentives, the wealthy individuals will not donate as much (choice A). As a result, those institutions would have less money and have to reduce services.

In order to draw the conclusion, wealthy individuals do not have to be the ONLY source of funding for those institutions. Even if donations from wealth individuals account for, say, half of the funding, if those donations are significantly reduced, the institutions would lose a lot of money. Thus, choice (B) can be eliminated.

Choice (D) can be eliminated for the same reason. Wealthy individuals do not have to be the ONLY individuals who make donations. Regardless, if the donations from just the wealthy individuals are reduced, the institutions would lose money and have to reduce services.

Choice (A) is the best answer.

In option B, "individuals" covers wealthy individuals as well, right? So, shouldn't this be an assumption?
Show more

Good question. Let's start by considering what it means to be an assumption of an argument. Basically, an assumption is something that is necessary for an argument to hold. Put another way, if the assumption were not true, the argument should fall apart.

Here's (B) again:

Quote:
Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.
Show more
Would the argument fall apart if this weren't true? Not exactly.

Notice that we don't need to assume that the money contributed by these individuals provides the ONLY source of funding for "many charitable and educational institutions." In other words, even if there were other sources of funding (such as the government, for instance), losing donations from wealthy individuals could still have a big impact on charitable institutions.

From another angle: for this argument to work, we'd probably need to assume that the donations from wealthy individuals make up a significant chunk of the money donated to charitable institutions. But we don't need to assume that the individuals mentioned in (B) are the only source of funding. For that reason, we don't need to assume (B) for the argument to hold, which makes it incorrect.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 25 Sep 2023, 08:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

Understanding the argument -
A proposed change would eliminate deductions from taxable income.
If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. (Do not jump to say that this means wealthy individuals do not contribute - that is an assumption that is not stated. What is stated is that they are not permitted. The assumption is if someone is not permitted, they don't do it in light of the conclusion here)
Conclusion - many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

The assumption is NOT - Wealthy individuals contribute to the majority of donations.
The assumption for the conclusion is that wealthy individuals DO NOT contribute to the majority of donations in light of the proposed change. (Not the ONLY one)

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have. - Complex options have unnecessarily complicated a simple question. What it is necessarily trying to say is that "at least some wealthy individuals would not donate." in line with our pre-thinking.
It's further complicated by the way we negate options (GMAT knows it, and they just want to raise the bar higher)
The correct negation of "at least some wealthy individuals would not donate" is "None wealthy individuals would not donate," which essentially means "all will donate."
Or the Correct negation of "at least some wealthy individuals would not donate" is "at least some wealthy individuals would donate," which essentially means "at least some will still donate."
In both cases, the conclusion breaks because if all or some are still donating, then "many charitable and educational institutions would not have to reduce services, and some would not have to close their doors."

Incorrect negation - "at least some wealthy individuals would not donate" is "none would donate." This is where this gets complicated as GMAT knows we try to negate every option (which is not a good practice. We should negate the final left or between the final 2 to decide), and this is a trap set by GMAT.

(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions. - ONLY source is a problem. We don't need to assume that it's the only source.

(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes. Out of scope.

(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions. - ONLY individuals is a problem. We don't need to assume that these individuals are the only source.

(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income. Out of scope
User avatar
stackskillz
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 165
Posts: 62
Kudos: 13
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction Updated on: 20 Mar 2024, 16:16
Originally posted by stackskillz on 16 Mar 2024, 08:37.
Last edited by stackskillz on 20 Mar 2024, 16:16, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conc: Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have. - Answers the question - Would wealthy individuals continue to donate as much money? It is possible that if people stopped donating, it could have the adverse effects on charity as stated in the passage. This seems like a possible answer. Let's negate to check - "Even without the incentives, wealthy individuals contineu to donate as much money as before". If this is the case, then the conclusion doesn't stand. The answer doens't hit you like a brick bat, but with some work, it looks solid. Keep

(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions. - Answers the question - "What are the sources for donations?" So, it does look like if the provision is removed it'll remove the funding. Let's negate to check. "Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of tax-relief is not the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions. However, eliminating the tax relief will  reduce the overall money donated to charities. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors." Sounds plausible, doesn't it? Drop

(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes - Talks about a different scenario, where the change is not adopted. Not relevant to the conclusion. Drop

(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions. - Firstly, the option talks about "Wealthy are the only individuals who donate money to the institution." Does that mean, organizations also donate money? Secondly, and more importantly, this option is similar to option B, it talks about possible sources of charity. Even if they're not the sole source of donations, the reduction in donation due to provision would still be in line with the conclusion. Drop

(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income - States an alternate conclusion. No need to think much. Drop. ­
User avatar
saurabhmishrano1
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 14 May 2025
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 20
Posts: 18
Kudos: 10
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 19 Mar 2024, 21:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.

   - This assumption is necessary for the argument because it supports the conclusion that many charitable and educational institutions would suffer if tax deductions for donations from wealthy individuals were eliminated. If wealthy individuals are less motivated to donate without tax incentives, it would likely result in reduced funding for these institutions, as asserted in the argument. Therefore, this assumption strengthens the argument's conclusion about the potential impact of the proposed change in tax laws.

B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.

   - This assumption goes beyond the scope of the argument. The argument focuses on the potential impact of eliminating tax deductions on donations from wealthy individuals, but it does not claim that these donations are the sole source of funding for charitable and educational institutions.

C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.

   - This assumption introduces a new reason for opposing the proposed change in tax laws, which is not directly related to the argument's conclusion about the potential consequences for charitable and educational institutions. Therefore, this assumption is not required by the argument.

D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.

   - This assumption is too extreme and goes against common knowledge. While wealthy individuals may contribute significant amounts to charitable and educational institutions, they are not the only donors. Many individuals from various income levels donate to such institutions for various reasons. Therefore, this assumption is not necessary for the argument.

E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.

   - This assumption goes beyond the scope of the argument and proposes a specific policy change that is not explicitly advocated for in the argument. The argument does not address whether donations to charitable and educational institutions should be the only permissible deductions. Therefore, this assumption is not required by the argument.
User avatar
Pqbot101
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2024
Last visit: 09 Jan 2025
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 291
Posts: 3
Kudos: 1
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 21 Sep 2024, 11:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone give an example of negating A?
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
130
Given Kudos: 5,193
Location: India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 534
Kudos: 130
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 21 Feb 2025, 23:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB IanStewart

If the conclusion were "Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to close their doors.", then options B and D would be true, right? OR still incorrect as "many" doesn't mean all?
I know this becomes a different conclusion altogether but wanted to clear my doubts on this.
User avatar
bb
User avatar
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 42,387
Own Kudos:
82,121
 [1]
Given Kudos: 24,110
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 42,387
Kudos: 82,121
 [1]
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 21 Feb 2025, 23:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan
Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB IanStewart

If the conclusion were "Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to close their doors.", then options B and D would be true, right? OR still incorrect as "many" doesn't mean all?
I know this becomes a different conclusion altogether but wanted to clear my doubts on this.
Show more

Next time you see an assumption question, I recommend you answer it first in your own words. That will make you much less tempted by other answer choices.

PS B and D are too extreme. They use the word only and that makes them immediately suspicious and often likely incorrect (not always though). This is a fairly common trap. You should build awareness for these things as you go through questions.
User avatar
bb
User avatar
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 42,387
Own Kudos:
82,121
Given Kudos: 24,110
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 42,387
Kudos: 82,121
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 21 Feb 2025, 23:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pqbot101
Can someone give an example of negating A?
Show more

Negating is a weaker strategy then answering in your own words but it works if you were stuck or you cannot find an answer. However, as you can see in this example negating it is tricky as well.


Example of negating: wealthy individuals will continue providing as much money or we increase their donation amounts.


(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have
User avatar
AditiDeokar
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 20
Given Kudos: 272
Location: India
Schools: NUS ESSEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiF '26
GPA: 3.5
Schools: NUS ESSEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiF '26
Posts: 20
Kudos: 0
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deduction 03 Oct 2025, 00:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi KarishmaB - in sentences with double negatives, do we just negate the first negative and leave the second?
KarishmaB


This is the reason I am not a fan of negation technique. Test takers feel it is a mechanical way out and helps one not to think - but that is not true. It often leads to way more confusion.

Did you check my previous explanation on this?
Look at the structure of the argument:

- A proposed change would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations.
(the donations one makes to charity are usually deducted from taxable income i.e. one doesn't need to pay tax on them. Eliminating deductions means one would need to pay tax on charity donations too)

- If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions.
(wealthy individuals would have to pay tax on donations too)

Conclusion: Many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

This is a big jump from eliminating deductions to charitable instis closing down their doors.

There are a few assumptions here:
1. If donations are made non deductible, some wealthy people will reduce/stop donating.
2. If wealthy people reduce/stop donating, charitable instis will not be able to manage the current services.


In simple terms, we are assuming that if donations are made non deductible, some people (perhaps even just 10 out of 100) will stop/reduce donations. Since we are concluding that there will be negative impact on making donations non deductible, we are assuming that some people will be demotivated to donate. That is all option (A) says.

(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.

Without incentives, at least some people will n to donate as much as before.

Now if you insist on negating, note what is negation of "some". It is "none"

Stmnt - Some people are A.
Negation - No people are A.

Stmnt - Without A, at least some B will not donate as much.
Negation - Without A, no B will not donate as much.

So negation of (A) is
Without incentives, none of the individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
This means all will donate as much.
(Note the double negative - "no one will not donate as much as before" becomes "all will donate as much as before" )

If all will donate as much as before, then we should have no negative impact and our conclusion falls apart.

Hence (A) is an assumption.
Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts