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

It is currently 14 Oct 2019, 11:57

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

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 274
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 20 Nov 2018, 04:10
4
1
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (02:22) correct 56% (02:26) wrong based on 410 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: 64
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 May 2010, 22:22
3
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
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9699
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
1
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 >
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 25
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Aug 2019, 05:54
Is this question GMAT like?
I spent 4 mins and still selected option E.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Jul 2014
Posts: 24
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Aug 2019, 07:27
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?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Status: As cheeks from my insta feed say: soon...
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Posts: 46
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2019, 05:22
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
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 57
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
CAT Tests
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2019, 13:20
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)
_________________
One way to keep momentum going is to have constantly greater goals - Michael Korda

Kudos me if this post helps you ;)
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Apr 2019
Posts: 67
Location: India
Schools: Kellogg '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GPA: 3.85
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2019, 21:16
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
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 57
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
CAT Tests
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2019, 15:36
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
_________________
One way to keep momentum going is to have constantly greater goals - Michael Korda

Kudos me if this post helps you ;)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases   [#permalink] 11 Oct 2019, 15:36
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  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne