Last visit was: 12 Jul 2024, 20:56 It is currently 12 Jul 2024, 20:56
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Affiliations: SPG
Posts: 232
Own Kudos [?]: 3201 [27]
Given Kudos: 34
Send PM
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 50
Own Kudos [?]: 199 [4]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15105
Own Kudos [?]: 66592 [4]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
PM Intern
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 183 [0]
Given Kudos: 197
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V41
Send PM
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
Is this question GMAT like?
I spent 4 mins and still selected option E.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2014
Posts: 89
Own Kudos [?]: 103 [0]
Given Kudos: 232
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Send PM
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma wrote:
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)


Hi there,
The question says, each of the following statement is logically consistent with analogy stated in the passage. I wondered for 2 mins how options A, B and E is similar to the analogy. Could you please explain?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Status:As cheeks from my insta feed say: soon...
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 144
Send PM
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma wrote:
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)


Hi @karishmaveritas

In what ways can A, B, and E co-exist with the statement?
In that they can either be or not be in line with it?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 71
Own Kudos [?]: 88 [0]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
Following Nightblade354 advise to push my CR skills beyond the limits, I'll post an extensive analysis of this questions, explaining the initial thoughts on the stimulus and the reasons why I reject four options and choose one as the winner :). I beieve this is one of the best ways to improve in CR. Don't just do questions, but try to extract as much as possible from each of them. I think doing blind review help a lot in doing so (more about blind review here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightbla ... 95316.html)

Here is the stimulus: 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.

Initial thoughts: Ok, so we need to look for something that is not consistent with the conclusion (the other 4 choices will be consistent):

Let's identify the premises and conclusion first:

1ºPremise: Recent study: Living w/ Parrot ---> + Risk LC (lung cancer)
2ºPremise: No financial impediments to own them given the danger
Conclusion: If no financial impediments to such risk, no financial impediments (putting taxes) to any activity that entails a risk

Ok so an example of a risk is given where no financial impediments are imposed. Given this, the government should not impose financial impediment to risky activities, So 4 answers should give me this line of reasoning and one not


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

Ok, this option says that dangerous activities should be taxed (i.e. should be imposed a financial impediment) to fund education. It doesn't seem this in line with conclusion because it is saying to apply a financial impediment. In addition, it is talking about funding education when the argument doesn't mention anything about funding things. Keep this one down

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

This one says should not taxed (should not apply a financial impediment) to good things (healthy things and non-dangerous activities). This doesn't sound good because it is saying not to apply a financial impediment to things that are not bad (and therefore things that are probably not taxed). So no financial impediment to things that don't have a financial impediment. This is in line with the conclusion. Incorrect

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

This one says should taxed (should apply a financial impediment) to dangerous thingss. The conclusion actually states no to apply financial impediments to dangerous things and this one just the opposite. This is a better option than A). Correct

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

This one says should not taxed (shouldn't apply a financial impediment) to dangerous things. Just the opposite to C) (the option I deem correct). Incorrect

(E) The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.

Taxes and food because of money? Not related at all. Incorrect

OPTION C

One small note I realized after completing the question. When it asks about logically consistent, those options that can co-exist with the author's conclusion when they are not actually addressing the actual conclusion are also incorrect. The correct answer for that question is the option that states the opposit to the author's conclusion (i.e. can't co-exist)
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2019
Posts: 236
Own Kudos [?]: 65 [0]
Given Kudos: 309
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.85
Send PM
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
garcmillan wrote:
Following Nightblade354 advise to push my CR skills beyond the limits, I'll post an extensive analysis of this questions, explaining the initial thoughts on the stimulus and the reasons why I reject four options and choose one as the winner :). I beieve this is one of the best ways to improve in CR. Don't just do questions, but try to extract as much as possible from each of them. I think doing blind review help a lot in doing so (more about blind review here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightbla ... 95316.html)

Here is the stimulus: 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.

Initial thoughts: Ok, so we need to look for something that is not consistent with the conclusion (the other 4 choices will be consistent):

Let's identify the premises and conclusion first:

1ºPremise: Recent study: Living w/ Parrot ---> + Risk LC (lung cancer)
2ºPremise: No financial impediments to own them given the danger
Conclusion: If no financial impediments to such risk, no financial impediments (putting taxes) to any activity that entails a risk

Ok so an example of a risk is given where no financial impediments are imposed. Given this, the government should not impose financial impediment to risky activities, So 4 answers should give me this line of reasoning and one not


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

Ok, this option says that dangerous activities should be taxed (i.e. should be imposed a financial impediment) to fund education. It doesn't seem this in line with conclusion because it is saying to apply a financial impediment. In addition, it is talking about funding education when the argument doesn't mention anything about funding things. Keep this one down

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

This one says should not taxed (should not apply a financial impediment) to good things (healthy things and non-dangerous activities). This doesn't sound good because it is saying not to apply a financial impediment to things that are not bad (and therefore things that are probably not taxed). So no financial impediment to things that don't have a financial impediment. This is in line with the conclusion. Incorrect

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

This one says should taxed (should apply a financial impediment) to dangerous thingss. The conclusion actually states no to apply financial impediments to dangerous things and this one just the opposite. This is a better option than A). Correct

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

This one says should not taxed (shouldn't apply a financial impediment) to dangerous things. Just the opposite to C) (the option I deem correct). Incorrect

(E) The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.

Taxes and food because of money? Not related at all. Incorrect

OPTION C

One small note I realized after completing the question. When it asks about logically consistent, those options that can co-exist with the author's conclusion when they are not actually addressing the actual conclusion are also incorrect. The correct answer for that question is the option that states the opposit to the author's conclusion (i.e. can't co-exist)


garcmillan great explanation!
However, i have a question with option 2. is it wrong because it is not aligned with the conclusion and not relevant to the conclusion. I couldn't undertand your logic of how Option B is consistent with the conclusion. Please explain
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 71
Own Kudos [?]: 88 [0]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
Aviral1995

Since the answer is not actually discussing dangerous activities, but healthy lifestyles, I'd say this is not related to the conclusion, which has to do with the discussion of dangerous activities
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17494
Own Kudos [?]: 867 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6979 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
821 posts