Drivers in the country of Holston want highway tolls eliminated

Question

Drivers in the country of Holston want highway tolls eliminated. The cost of maintaining the highways is paid entirely out of revenue from the highway tolls. Holston must maintain its highways. Thus, it follows that if the tolls are eliminated, then the entire cost of maintaining the highways will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes.

Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?

(A) Work on highway maintenance can be authorized only if the money needed to pay for it has already been collected.

(B) The amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with toll collection would not be available to pay part of the total cost of maintaining the highways.

(C) If the highway tolls are eliminated and the general taxes are increased to pay for maintaining the highways, there will be less emphasis on preventive maintenance.

(D) The total cost of maintaining the highways will be less if the highway tolls rather than the general taxes pay for the maintenance.

(E) If the highway tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase the general taxes.

rajdeep212003 · Answer

I think option B is the required assumption here.

The argument says:

• highway maintenance is currently paid entirely by toll revenue 
• highways still must be maintained 
• therefore, if tolls are eliminated, the entire maintenance cost will have to come from increased general taxes

But there is a hidden assumption in that jump.

The author is assuming that eliminating tolls would NOT free up enough money from toll collection operations to cover any meaningful part of the maintenance costs.

That is exactly what option B says.

If B were false, then the argument weakens immediately because the money saved from removing toll booths, toll workers, collection systems, etc. could help pay for maintenance without needing the full increase in taxes.

So B is necessary for the conclusion to hold.

---

Why the other options do not work:

(A) The argument never says maintenance money must already be collected before work begins. 
That issue is completely outside the logic of the argument.

(C) Preventive maintenance is irrelevant. 
The conclusion is only about where the money will come from.

(D) The argument never compares whether toll funding or tax funding is cheaper overall. 
It only discusses replacing the funding source.

(E) This is too strong. 
General taxes could still increase for other unrelated reasons even if tolls remain.

So B is the only choice that directly fills the logical gap in the argument.

I mainly solved this by asking:
“What is the author assuming before concluding that ALL maintenance costs must shift to taxes?”

That pointed directly to B.

If anyone sees another way to frame the assumption quickly, feel free to share.

— Rajdeep

guddo · Answer

Drivers in the country of Holston want highway tolls eliminated. The cost of maintaining the highways is paid entirely out of revenue from the highway tolls. Holston must maintain its highways. Thus, it follows that if the tolls are eliminated, then the entire cost of maintaining the highways will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes. 
 
Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?

The argument says that if tolls are eliminated, then all highway maintenance costs must be paid through higher general taxes.  The assumption  is that no other money freed up by eliminating tolls can cover even part of the maintenance cost.

(A) Work on highway maintenance can be authorized only if the money needed to pay for it has already been collected.

Wrong. The timing of when money is collected is not relevant.

(B) The amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with toll collection would not be available to pay part of the total cost of maintaining the highways.

Correct. If eliminating tolls also saves money from toll collection, and that saved money could pay part of highway maintenance, then the  entire  cost would not have to be covered by increased general taxes.

(C) If the highway tolls are eliminated and the general taxes are increased to pay for maintaining the highways, there will be less emphasis on preventive maintenance.

Wrong. This is about how maintenance would be managed, not how it would be funded.

(D) The total cost of maintaining the highways will be less if the highway tolls rather than the general taxes pay for the maintenance.

Wrong. The argument does not depend on maintenance being cheaper under toll funding.

(E) If the highway tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase the general taxes.

Wrong. The argument is only about what happens if tolls are eliminated.

Answer: (B)

SkyBulb · Answer

but B is about paying a "part" of the total cost of highway. Remaining cost still needs to be paid and question remains the same with lower cost. Only remaining assumption is that if tolls go, taxes increase. Isnt this more coherent?

guddo · Answer

The issue is the word  entire .

Yes, if tolls are eliminated, some remaining cost may still require higher taxes. But the argument says the entire maintenance cost will have to be paid by increased general taxes.

B matters because if savings from toll collection can pay even part of the maintenance cost, then increased taxes would not pay the  entire  cost.
So B is required. It blocks the possibility that another source covers part of the cost.

yc168 · Answer

OE for reference:

Overview:  
The conclusion of the argument is that "if the tolls are eliminated, then the entire cost of maintaining the highways will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes." This conclusion is supported by two considerations: first, that Holston has no choice but to maintain its highways, and second, that toll revenue has in the past been the sole source of the money used to pay for highway maintenance.
Notice that the argument's conclusion goes beyond what the argument gives evidence for. Specifically, it might not be necessary to increase general taxes by an amount that covers the entire cost of maintaining the highways. One significant alternative that the argument does not consider is that Holston might reduce public expenditures in some other area and use the resulting savings to cover at least part of the cost of highway maintenance.

The Correct Answer:

B  If (B) were false, the amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with collecting tolls would be available to cover part of the total cost of maintaining the highways. In that case, the fact that toll revenue has until now covered all of the expenses for highway maintenance no longer strongly supports the argument's conclusion. So if (B) were false, the support for this conclusion would be undermined. (B) is thus an assumption of the argument.

The Incorrect Answer Choices:

A  The argument does assume that work on highway maintenance will be paid for from a revenue stream such as tolls or taxes, but it doesn't specify that the revenue must be collected before the work can be authorized. It is thus consistent with the argument that Holston would authorize work on highway maintenance before the money to pay for it has been collected. So (A) is not assumed.

C  If (C) were false, then preventive maintenance would be as important after the abolition of tolls as before. This would affect how much money would be required for highway maintenance, but it does not affect the central issue of the argument: whether money for maintaining highways can only be raised by increasing general taxes. So (C)'s being false would not interfere with how well the argument works.

D  The argument concludes that general taxes would have to increase if tolls were abolished. But it does not conclude this because highway maintenance would become more expensive. Rather, general taxes would have to be increased because general tax revenue would have to cover a cost that it did not need to cover before—the cost of maintaining the highways. So (D) is not assumed.

E  The argument concludes that eliminating highway tolls would require a tax increase that covers the entire cost of maintaining Holston's highways. The argument does not require that there would not simultaneously be other governmental needs that would have to be covered by raising general taxes. Thus, as far as the argument is concerned, general taxes might have to be increased even if the highway tolls were not eliminated. (E), therefore, is not assumed.

Drivers in the country of Holston want highway tolls eliminated

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Drivers in the country of Holston want highway tolls eliminated

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards