Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable inc

Question

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.

Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?

(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise.
(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes.
(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers.
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes.
(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid.

johnnymac · Accepted Answer

It's gotta be C as E doesn't use the information from both statements. It only uses the information from the second statement. The stimulus says which conclusion comes from using both statements and only C does this.

cvargasm · Answer

E is very close but the question is very tricky, so take into account this:

It is true that E can be logically derived from the second statement. The issue here is that the question is asking for a logical conclusion that depends on both statements. E only depends on the second statement and the first does not provide any informations relevant to conclude E

C on the other hand is a conclusion that depends on both statements:

(Please excuse my english, these are not formal logic procedures but they provide a general idea)
Lets suppose real tax payers are public employees
Supposition: x is a real tax payer <-> x is a public employee
Taxes are abolished -> y is a real tax payer ^ y has its disposable income increased
Taxes are abolished -> z is a public employee ^ z has its income dessapear
Lets take the person A, A is a real tax payer
Taxes are abolished then:
A is a real tax payer ^ A has its disposable income increased
A is a public employee ^ A has its disposable income increased
But also
A is a public employee ^ A has its income dessapear
So A has its disposable income increased ^ A has its income dessapear

Since we reached a contradiction we conclude that real tax payers cannot be public employees since disposable income cannot increase if the income dissapears.

We reach a contradiction that depend on both statements to proof. Answer E is also right, but it is not what the question is asking, be careful with tricky questions.

RegardsRegards

scthakur · Answer

I will go with C. I find E weak. It talks about payment to public employees. Payment may not be the only source of income. The argument talks about the income of these employees.

nitya34 · Answer

Its from LSAT series
OA-C
++++++++
request to you all Posters
pls post the OA within 8-10 discussions/24 hrs
do we have spoiler here?
++++++++++++++++
Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.
Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?
(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise.
(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes.
(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers.
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes.
(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid.

silasaaa2 · Answer

(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise.  irrelevant 
(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes.  illogical 
(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers.  chances are there waitlisted 
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes. irrelevant 
(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid. comes close

I think C and E are more relevant to the question but between C and E I chose E because from the statement it is obvious that if taxes are abolished public employees wouldn't have any income

and also the above statement doesn't clearly states that pubilc employee are not real tax payers

Anonymous · Answer

I chose E but changed to C since, we have to consider both statments, choice E only considers the last statment. Additionally E is more of an inference other than a conclusion.

jcampomar · Answer

I went with E.

The premise states that public employees salaries are funded with taxes (other possibilities like debt are slashed away).

However, public employees may have sources of rent (different from income) which may be taxable, converting them into real tax payers.

cvargasm · Answer

The problem with this is that you are assuming and utilizing your knowledge to introduce new concepts to the statements, one should always get back and only use what the question provides, if you use all of our knowledge in logic proofs like this we will made them just un-proof-able, and what is correctly concluded through logic for you will be different for any other human being that didn't knew this fact or any other you just included, that is why one should stay back to use general or personal knowledge to include as inputs to the logic proof and only use what the statements settle, that way you will assure there is only one correct answer

LogicGuru1 · Answer

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.

No tax =  real taxpayers will have more income  
   No tax=  Public employee will have no income  .
  Conclusion:-  No tax = Any one who is a real taxpayer will see some increase in income except public employee who will not get any income. 
 
  Since after removing tax the public employee income is not increased, then it must be concluded thais employee are not real taxpayers.

OPTION C is the correct answer

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.

uchihaitachi · Answer

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.

Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?

(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise. 
----> does not come from the statements above, as no correlation between public offices and disposable incomes.

(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes. 
----> expenditure, taxes correlation not discussed.

(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers. 
---> if public employers had been real taxpayers then after abolishing taxes their disposable incomes would have increased.

(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes. 
---> is not implied from the argument.

(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid. 
---> if we assume that the extra disposable income that the real taxpayers generate, is used to pay the public employees income then this could be a conclusion. 
But, this introduces an assumption that is out of scope.  Eliminated

Purvidebuka · Answer

Hi Experts,

Though only C & E are contenders here, I am a bit confused why the OA is C. Isn't E using the information from both statements? Please help.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Purvidebuka . If you examine the passage carefully, you will see that, based on the same condition—   abolish taxes —an outcome follows.

abolish taxes → real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased
abolish taxes → public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared

Since the question stem asks us to form a logical conclusion from  both of the statements , we should be looking for a crossover in information from the right-hand side of the arrows above. If it helps:

The crux of the conclusion in (C) is, believe it or not,  are not : both outcomes from the passage are represented. Answer choice (E) is a restatement of the second conditional statement only:

If there were no taxes—i.e. abolish taxes
public employees could not be paid—i.e. public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared

Thus, we can rule out (E) in favor of (C) as the answer to the question that is being asked.

Although I doubt this sort of question would appear as is on the GMAT™, it can still be useful for supplemental practice. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

maxro3x · Answer

I went with E. But then read the explanations and understood why C would be right. This is an amazing CR question where one should be completely free of any external idea/knowledge to logically jump to the answer.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable inc

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable inc

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards