Aroca City currently funds its public schools through taxes on

When you're breaking down a passage, you want to think about the most important thing first. Then piece together how the author builds up to that important thing. Why did the author write the passage in the first place?

Here, the author is trying to convince the reader that "implementing the plan [of replacing property tax with sales tax] will probably not reduce the money going to Aroca's schools." THIS is the most important piece of the passage -- it is the author's conclusion. Everything else in the passage revolves around this conclusion as support, or background context, or a counterargument, etc.

So, how does the author support this conclusion? By building the following chain of logic:

• First, the author lists this piece of supporting evidence: "Several large retailers have selected Aroca City as the site for huge new stores, and these are certain to draw large numbers of shoppers from neighboring municipalities, where sales are taxed at rates of six percent and more."
• Then, the author makes a prediction based on the above fact: "In consequence, retail sales in Aroca City are bound to increase substantially."

Based on these two pieces of support, the author concludes that Aroca's school won't get less money under the new plan.

So, what else is in the passage?

The first two sentences just give us background information and context for the rest of the argument: "Aroca City currently funds its public schools through taxes on property. In place of this system, the city plans to introduce a sales tax of three percent on all retail sales in the city."

Then, the author give us the perspective of some critics of the plan: "Critics protest that three percent of current retail sales falls short of the amount raised for schools by property taxes."

The author actually agrees with this point. However, he/she then goes on to say why the plan isn't such a bad idea, even if the critics are right that taxing CURRENT retail sales won't provide as much money as property taxes do.

Overall, this is how the argument is constructed:

1) Background info: "Aroca City currently funds its public schools through taxes on property. In place of this system, the city plans to introduce a sales tax of three percent on all retail sales in the city."
2) Critic's viewpoint: "Critics protest that three percent of current retail sales falls short of the amount raised for schools by property taxes."
3) The author saying that the critics are right: "The critics are correct on this point."
4) The author's conclusion, which he/she reaches in spite of the above objection: "Nevertheless, implementing the plan will probably not reduce the money going to Aroca's schools."
5) The author's support for this conclusion: "Several large retailers have selected Aroca City as the site for huge new stores, and these are certain to draw large numbers of shoppers from neighboring municipalities, where sales are taxed at rates of six percent and more. In consequence, retail sales in Aroca City are bound to increase substantially."

I hope that helps!

avigutman I do not get it how the first BF is not being refuted. TBH if 3% of retail sales will be reduction in the amount of funds raised for school, and there will be no reduction in the money given to schools due to higher retail sales then how can we say 3% will be a reduction? If retail sales are increasing, it is rather likely that the critics' claim (3% of retail sales being less) is wrong because with increased retail sales, 3% will be more

Elite097 The sentence "The critics are correct on this point." shows that the argument does not seek to refute the first BF.
You misrepresented the claim made by the first BF in your quote above (see the verb tense you used, which I boldfaced).
The claim was
Note the parts that I boldfaced... This claim is a claim about the current state of the world, not about the future.

Edited to add: in my opinion, boldface CR questions are most easily, accurately, and quickly solved by NOT reading the actual boldfaced text.
I know this is extremely counterintuitive, but that's what I do and that's what I teach.
In this particular problem, I only read the following highlights:

This is the part you got wrong, Barfi. It’s actually explaining what the critics failed to consider. By the way, a big hint is the word “nevertheless”.

Posted from my mobile device

Dear Expert,
Please explain, why option B is wrong?

GMATNinjaTwo
GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma generis



Is the second part sophisticated way of saying:
The prediction (if accurate) strengthens the objection.

Hi GmatNinja,
Still D is not clear. I got d point that author outright agreed wd critics. But I think tht 'Argument' as a whole is refuting d first bold face sentence.
Pls correct my approach or understanding.
Thanks.

Sent from my Redmi 5 Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Dear experts,

Please share your views on the following matter.

The reason why I didn't select A was "if accurate": The first is an objection that has been raised against a certain plan; the second is a prediction that, if accurate, undermines the force of that objection.

Aroca City currently funds its public schools through taxes on property. In place of this system, the city plans to introduce a sales tax of three percent on all retail sales in the city. Critics protest that three percent of current retail sales falls short of the amount raised for schools by property taxes. The critics are correct on this point. Nevertheless, implementing the plan will probably not reduce the money going to Aroca's schools. Several large retailers have selected Aroca City as the site for huge new stores, and these are certain to draw large numbers of shoppers from neighboring municipalities, where sales are taxed at rates of six percent and more. In consequence, retail sales in Aroca City are bound to increase substantially.

Doesn't the "if accurate" call the argument into question?Aren't we certain that these facts are indeed true?

GMATNinja
Sir,
Why the author used the word ''nevertheless''? Did not the author ''refute'' critics' claim by using that word?

HI GMAT NInja, On same lines could you explain (B) The first is a criticism, endorsed by the argument, of a funding plan; the second is a point the argument makes in favor of adopting an alternative plan. Isnt the 2nd a point in favour of the alternative plan

As nav4042 and VeritasKarishma have pointed out, the issue with (B) is the word "alternative."

Here's the exact language of (B):


The author introduces a plan to raise funds for schools. Let's call this the 3% Plan. The first BF is a criticism of the 3% Plan -- so far, (B) is looking OK. However, the author then goes on to undermine that criticism, and still argue in support of the 3% Plan. He/she doesn't argue for any alternative plan to fund schools (e.g., some other tax or something). Because the author sticks to the 3% Plan, we can't say that the second BF is a point in favor of adopting an alternative plan.

For this reason, (B) is out.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EducationAisle in (B) and (C) we have "The first is a criticism, endorsed by the argument, of a funding plan" is this correct? Just because the argument mentions The critics are correct on this point can we say that the argument in endorsing this criticism?

Could you elaborate on the word endorsing? Does it mean accepting?

Keeping the overall argument in mind, and as you mentioned that the author immediately gives a counter-argument, I rejected (B) and (C) also by disagreeing that the argument "endorses" the criticism

But you mentioned that Endorse means approval, so in that case "the critics are correct on this point" seems like an approval... to an extent.

[quote="VeritasKarishma"][quote="Hoozan"]GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EducationAisle


Can you help me bifurcate each sentence into premise, conclusion etc.
Aroca City currently funds its public schools through taxes on property. In place of this system, the city plans to introduce a sales tax of three percent on all retail sales in the city.-Premise
Critics protest that three percent of current retail sales falls short of the amount raised for schools by property taxes. -Premise
The critics are correct on this point.- Intermediate conclusion as per author
Nevertheless, implementing the plan will probably not reduce the money going to Aroca's schools. - Counter premise
Several large retailers have selected Aroca City as the site for huge new stores, and these are certain to draw large numbers of shoppers from neighboring municipalities, where sales are taxed at rates of six percent and more.-Counter premise
In consequence, [b]retail sales in Aroca City are bound to increase substantially- Main conclusion

(A) The first is an objection that has been raised against a certain plan; the second is a prediction that, if accurate, undermines the force of that objection.
Exactly the reasoning and the roles played by the bold face therefore let us hang on to it

(B) The first is a criticism, endorsed by the argument, of a funding plan; the second is a point the argument makes in favor of adopting an alternative plan.
First isn't a criticism but rather a fact that's portrayed and it's not portraying any alternative plans buut rather lending support to the initial plans

(C) The first is a criticism, endorsed by the argument, of a funding plan; the second is the main reason cited by the argument for its endorsement of the criticism.
This is not making any sense since it's way outside the reasoning circle hence out

(D) The first is a claim that the argument seeks to refute; the second is the main point used by the argument to show that the claim is false.
The claim was never false in the first instance but rather it was falling short of the requisite plans hence out

(E) The first is a claim that the argument accepts with certain reservations; the second presents that claim in a rewording that is not subject to those reservations.
These reservations are highly subjective and we are not in a position to credibly comment about the same

Therefore IMO A

KarishmaB GMATNinja AjiteshArun DmitryFarber ExpertsGlobal5
mikemcgary

Hi Experts,

I want to confirm whether there is difference between main point and main conclusion. In option(D), "The first is a claim that the argument seeks to refute; the second is the 'main point' used by the argument to show that the claim is false.", we have the word 'main point'.

As per my understanding, Boldface 2 is the main point used by the argument to support that the proposed plan will work. However, Boldface 2 is not the main point of argument. The main point of argument is 'implementing the plan will probably not reduce the money going to Aroca's schools'.

Is my understanding on keyword main point correct?

Can someone pls explain why option C is incorrect?

In the argument given, the two potions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(C) The first is a criticism, endorsed by the argument, of a funding plan; the second is the main reason cited by the argument for its endorsement of the criticism.

Can we not argue that the criticism was endorsed due to the below text in bold mentioned:
Critics protest that three percent of current retail sales falls short of the amount raised for schools by property taxes. The critics are correct on this point.

Further, critics stating that 'three percent of current retail sales falls short of the amount raised for schools by property taxes' is indeed a criticism.

Lastly, the second statement in bold explains/provides key reason as to why criticism is endorsed.

Given these factors, I am confused as to why option A> option C?