It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 03:46

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Can anybody explain?

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Can anybody explain? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2005, 03:12
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.
Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.
Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Rogerâ€™s charge that her argument is illogical?
(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1706

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

Re: Can anybody explain? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2005, 07:21
A is ok... explanation later. let us have more response.

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1706

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

Re: Can anybody explain? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2005, 18:59
OA?

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 452 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2005, 19:10
(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.

I'll go with A. Rogers says scholl attendance is not a matter of choice and so it is unfair for the governement to force some parents to pay twice for it. However, from A, drinking water is also not a matter of choice as it is nescessary for all to drink water. So her analogy is right.

Kudos [?]: 452 [0], given: 0

07 Jun 2005, 19:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Can anybody explain?

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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.