GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Mar 2019, 21:02

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 299
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 20 Nov 2018, 04:10
3
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

37% (02:20) correct 63% (02:24) wrong based on 204 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.


LSAT

Originally posted by dimitri92 on 24 May 2010, 20:55.
Last edited by Bunuel on 20 Nov 2018, 04:10, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 70
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 May 2010, 22:22
2
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"
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8997
Location: Pune, India
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2019, 00:58
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.


LSAT


Columnist's conclusion: The government should NOT levy special taxes on gear for activities considered dangerous.

(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.

Has nothing to do with activities considered dangerous. This principle could co-exist with the columnist's conclusion.

(B) The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt heathly lifestyles.

This is again irrelevant to the columnist's conclusion. He/she says that the govt should not levy extra tax on those who choose dangerous activities. He/she could also believe that the govt should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities. The two ideas can co-exist.

(C) The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.

This conflicts with the columnist's conclusion. The columnists wants the Govt to not tax those who participate in dangerous activities. This option says that the govt should create financial disincentives (taxes) - financial reasons for discouraging participation in dangerous activities. So this option says that extra taxes should be put on those participating in dangerous activities. Correct.

(D) The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities

This is in line with what the columnists says. The govt should not tax i.e. should not create financial disincentives for people who get involved in 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.

Irrelevant to the columnist's conclusion so can co-exist with it.

Answer (C)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases   [#permalink] 26 Feb 2019, 00:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.