Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
23 Jan 2020, 07:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
ANALYSIS:
Given:
1. The plan is to increase gasoline taxes so that people use their cars less
2. But according to skeptics –
Majority of the people in the province live in areas where cars are the only possible means of travelling to jobs, etc, and therefore, these people cannot use their cars less even in the face of increased taxes.
3. Conclusion that needs to be strengthened:
The government’s plan to reduce congestion in the long term through an increase in gasoline taxes will be successful.
It’s a typical Plan-Goal argument.
We can use a simple framework for solving this question
STEP-1
Identify Plan- increase taxes on gasoline – increase gasoline price – encourage people to use their cars less because of increased prices
Identify Goal- reduce traffic congestion in the long term
STEP- 2
What happened during the planning & execution stage?
• Despite knowing that cars are the only possible means of transportation for people living in the said areas, the government has drawn a plan to discourage the use of cars. It is possible that the government while drawing the plan, also had some secondary plan of solving the problem of “cars being the only viable means of transportation”.
• The government will most likely draw higher revenues from the increase in gasoline taxes. It is possible that such revenues can be put to use to solve the problem of “cars being the only viable means of transportation”.
Strengthener#1: The government has long term plans to somehow make available such means of public transportation that can be used instead of cars in such areas.
Strengthener#2: The government plans to rebuild roads to make travelling by other means, such as bicycles, buses a viable option
ANSWER CHOICE ELIMINATION
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 choice is in line with our pre-thinking. It is a combination of the two pre-thought strengtheners.
Correct Choice)
B. The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(Even if residents switch to more fuel-efficient cars, the problem of traffic congestion will not really be solved. Remember the aim was to decrease traffic congestion, not reduce pollution, etc. Out of scope.
Incorrect Choice)
C. Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation.
(Underpriced gasoline implies scope for raising the prices without deterring people from continuing to drive cars. This choice only weakens the chances of the government’s plan working out in the future.
Incorrect Choice)
D. Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(If residents reduce other expenses to keep up their current driving habits, it means there would not be any reduction in the frequency or amount of driving and thus the plan to reduce congestion will not really work. This is more of a weakener as it proves that people would continue with their current driving habits.
Incorrect Choice)
E. Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation
(This just states the severity of the problem and shows that traffic congestion needs to be addressed. But it does not prove whether the plan the government wants to put into action will actually work or not. Out of scope
Incorrect Choice.)
Given:
1. The plan is to increase gasoline taxes so that people use their cars less
2. But according to skeptics –
Majority of the people in the province live in areas where cars are the only possible means of travelling to jobs, etc, and therefore, these people cannot use their cars less even in the face of increased taxes.
3. Conclusion that needs to be strengthened:
The government’s plan to reduce congestion in the long term through an increase in gasoline taxes will be successful.
It’s a typical Plan-Goal argument.
We can use a simple framework for solving this question
STEP-1
Identify Plan- increase taxes on gasoline – increase gasoline price – encourage people to use their cars less because of increased prices
Identify Goal- reduce traffic congestion in the long term
STEP- 2
What happened during the planning & execution stage?
• Despite knowing that cars are the only possible means of transportation for people living in the said areas, the government has drawn a plan to discourage the use of cars. It is possible that the government while drawing the plan, also had some secondary plan of solving the problem of “cars being the only viable means of transportation”.
• The government will most likely draw higher revenues from the increase in gasoline taxes. It is possible that such revenues can be put to use to solve the problem of “cars being the only viable means of transportation”.
Strengthener#1: The government has long term plans to somehow make available such means of public transportation that can be used instead of cars in such areas.
Strengthener#2: The government plans to rebuild roads to make travelling by other means, such as bicycles, buses a viable option
ANSWER CHOICE ELIMINATION
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 choice is in line with our pre-thinking. It is a combination of the two pre-thought strengtheners.
Correct Choice)
B. The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
(Even if residents switch to more fuel-efficient cars, the problem of traffic congestion will not really be solved. Remember the aim was to decrease traffic congestion, not reduce pollution, etc. Out of scope.
Incorrect Choice)
C. Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation.
(Underpriced gasoline implies scope for raising the prices without deterring people from continuing to drive cars. This choice only weakens the chances of the government’s plan working out in the future.
Incorrect Choice)
D. Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
(If residents reduce other expenses to keep up their current driving habits, it means there would not be any reduction in the frequency or amount of driving and thus the plan to reduce congestion will not really work. This is more of a weakener as it proves that people would continue with their current driving habits.
Incorrect Choice)
E. Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation
(This just states the severity of the problem and shows that traffic congestion needs to be addressed. But it does not prove whether the plan the government wants to put into action will actually work or not. Out of scope
Incorrect Choice.)
mba757
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Last visit: 04 Aug 2022
Posts: 305
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
Schools: Darden '24 (A) Fuqua '24 (WL) Kellogg '24 (D)
GPA: 3.3
07 Jan 2021, 06:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: “…plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less, reducing traffic congestion in the long term.” What would most logically support this? We’re talking about reducing traffic congestion in the LONG TERM.
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.
This could reduce the traffic in the long term. More tax (and people inevitably have to pay more taxes because of their circumstances) thus more revenue therefore public transportation, which leads to people driving less and reducing traffic.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
Wow, got trapped by this and lost track of the conclusion, but this is irrelevant. We’re focusing on TRAFFIC CONGESTION. Air pollution and other problems are irrelevant to the discussion. This is weakening the wrong conclusion.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
This would support the other skeptics’ objection. Only means of transportation thus how could raising taxes lead to reducing traffic?
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
“Most” = greater than 50%. This would support the other skeptics’ objection. This shows how more than 50% of the population could change their expenses and accommodate for the increase in gasoline prices, thus not changing the level of traffic.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.
Doesn’t matter what their thoughts are on the problem.
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.
This could reduce the traffic in the long term. More tax (and people inevitably have to pay more taxes because of their circumstances) thus more revenue therefore public transportation, which leads to people driving less and reducing traffic.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
Wow, got trapped by this and lost track of the conclusion, but this is irrelevant. We’re focusing on TRAFFIC CONGESTION. Air pollution and other problems are irrelevant to the discussion. This is weakening the wrong conclusion.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
This would support the other skeptics’ objection. Only means of transportation thus how could raising taxes lead to reducing traffic?
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
“Most” = greater than 50%. This would support the other skeptics’ objection. This shows how more than 50% of the population could change their expenses and accommodate for the increase in gasoline prices, thus not changing the level of traffic.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.
Doesn’t matter what their thoughts are on the problem.
13 Jan 2021, 01:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
Correct. The skeptic argues that cars are the only viable option, but this shows there could be another means by which they can get to work and also reduce congestion.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
Irrelevant.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
This strengthens the skeptic’s claim, not the prediction by the government.
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
Irrelevant.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.
This is purely explanatory. Sure it’s a serious problem, but will people abandon their cars given that they are the only viable means of transportation? Probably not.
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.
Correct. The skeptic argues that cars are the only viable option, but this shows there could be another means by which they can get to work and also reduce congestion.
(B) The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.
Irrelevant.
(C) Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation
This strengthens the skeptic’s claim, not the prediction by the government.
(D) Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.
Irrelevant.
(E) Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.
This is purely explanatory. Sure it’s a serious problem, but will people abandon their cars given that they are the only viable means of transportation? Probably not.
