Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
46% (02:25) correct
54%
(02:27)
wrong
based on 764
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
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
24 May 2010, 22:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
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"
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"
26 Feb 2019, 00:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
dimitri92
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)
. 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: 
