Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 29 May 2017, 04:11

### 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

# Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 751 [1] , given: 28

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 May 2010, 20:55
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

26% (02:52) correct 74% (01:58) wrong based on 77 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer.But no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger.So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.
(B)The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt heathly lifestyles.
(C)The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
(D)The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities
(E)The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.
_________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 79
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 60 [1] , given: 11

### Show Tags

24 May 2010, 22:22
1
KUDOS
premise 1 - living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer
premise 2 - but no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger

conclusion - so by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles

option A - not relevant to the argument.the use of taxes to fund education is beyond the scope of the argument
option B - not relevant to the argument it doesn't hint anything about avoiding dangerous activities and adopting healthy lifestyles.
option C - the conclusion states the government should not levy analogous special taxes on x, y, z..etc this negates the conclusion. Correct
option D - the conlcusion doesn't mention about race cars or climbing mountains it enlists rather specific activities viz.hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles
option E - again irrelevant to the argument.

hence option C. I think the fact that many of the options seem vague makes this CR very confusing. Guess sometimes things which are "not related" also fall under the cateogry of "logically inconsistent"
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 74
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 14:30
1
KUDOS
sh00nya wrote:
premise 1 - living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer
premise 2 - but no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger

conclusion - so by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles

option A - not relevant to the argument.the use of taxes to fund education is beyond the scope of the argument
option B - not relevant to the argument it doesn't hint anything about avoiding dangerous activities and adopting healthy lifestyles.
option C - the conclusion states the government should not levy analogous special taxes on x, y, z..etc this negates the conclusion. Correct
option D - the conlcusion doesn't mention about race cars or climbing mountains it enlists rather specific activities viz.hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles
option E - again irrelevant to the argument.

hence option C. I think the fact that many of the options seem vague makes this CR very confusing. Guess sometimes things which are "not related" also fall under the cateogry of "logically inconsistent"

+1 for C.

Same explanation as above.
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1507
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 630 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

27 May 2010, 12:42
I picked (C) but this is a very weird CR....what is the source of the CR?
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 397
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 186 [1] , given: 76

### Show Tags

28 May 2010, 12:30
1
KUDOS
dimitri92 wrote:
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer.But no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger.So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.
(B)The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt heathly lifestyles.
(C)The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
(D)The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities
(E)The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.

Option C is the only answer choice different in logic to the argument.
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1452
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 00:52
bumping this one up...my head spun reading the choices....i picked the correct one but had spent a good 3.5 mins. I realized it's simple - but one has to understand the trick perhaps...
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 165
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 03:21
somehow picked up c . but a eird question indeed.
_________________

R E S P E C T

Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 145
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2010, 02:04
jn.mohit wrote:
sh00nya wrote:
premise 1 - living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer
premise 2 - but no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger

conclusion - so by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles

option A - not relevant to the argument.the use of taxes to fund education is beyond the scope of the argument
option B - not relevant to the argument it doesn't hint anything about avoiding dangerous activities and adopting healthy lifestyles.
option C - the conclusion states the government should not levy analogous special taxes on x, y, z..etc this negates the conclusion. Correct
option D - the conlcusion doesn't mention about race cars or climbing mountains it enlists rather specific activities viz.hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles
option E - again irrelevant to the argument.

hence option C. I think the fact that many of the options seem vague makes this CR very confusing. Guess sometimes things which are "not related" also fall under the cateogry of "logically inconsistent"

+1 for C.

IMO C
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3183
Followers: 861

Kudos [?]: 7331 [0], given: 1065

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2011, 09:39
I do not understand what kind of question is this ?? really.........should be somthing that support the conclusion and ONE should be irrilevant or weaken the same conclusion..

mah............
_________________
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10303
Followers: 1000

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2015, 04:47
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.
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot   [#permalink] 30 Aug 2015, 04:47
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Columnist: In a recent article an economist argues 3 04 Jun 2016, 22:32
6 A recent report suggests that the increasing popularity 7 26 May 2017, 11:27
9 A recent study indicated that most 6 12 Sep 2016, 08:56
9 Recent research suggests that biodiversity hotspots are not 9 01 Oct 2016, 01:32
4 A recent study demonstrated that parents living with 24 01 May 2017, 12:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by