Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Jan 2410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
The Target Test Prep team is proud to introduce GMAT OnDemand, a video course created by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder and CEO, designed to provide you with everything you need to master the GMAT and achieve your score goals.
Jan 2110:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
For a limited time, get 20% off our GMAT courses, including private tutoring! Work with an expert who will help you ace the GMAT and achieve your dreams. Use code 20NEW.
Jan 2511:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Jan 26
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
06 Jul 2015, 00:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
84% (01:48) correct
16%
(02:02)
wrong
based on 8233
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.
Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?
(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
ID - CR09151
Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?
(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
ID - CR09151
Reducing Air Pollution
Step 1: Identify the Question
The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
E: tax pollutants in prop. to damage = MOST cost eff
BUT: Y: oppose taxes + many pollutants unreg.
→ best way in Y = upper limits, NOT tax
On the one hand, the author believes that the most economically efficient way to reduce air pollution is to tax emissions. However, he argues that this won’t be effective in Country Y. In Country Y, it will be more effective to institute fixed upper limits for pollutant emissions. The evidence for this is that Country Y’s policy makers oppose new taxes, and serious pollutants are not currently taxed or regulated.
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Assumption questions, the goal is to identify an assumption that is critical to the logic of the argument. The right answer will be a statement that the author must believe to be true in order to logically draw the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that, in Country Y, the best approach to reducing air pollution is instituting fixed upper limits. What else must be true, in order to logically conclude that this is the best approach?
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This doesn’t have to be true. For instance, policy makers in Country Y could vehemently oppose new taxes on pollutants, but only mildly oppose new income taxes. In this scenario, the conclusion would still be reasonable.
(B) This is a strengthener, since it implies that taxation would be unsuccessful for another reason, beyond the reasoning already provided in the argument. However, an assumption must make a statement that has to be true, not just one that strengthens the argument. This answer choice, logically, could be false even while the argument is still valid. To prove this, try the negation test: Country Y’s emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage. In this case, the conclusion of the argument could still be true, because fixed upper limits could still be a better method for other reasons.
(C) This answer seems to imply that policy makers in Country Y will be more willing to accept policies that reduce pollutant emissions in general. However, it does not support one method of reduction over another. The conclusion specifically states that one method is better than the other method in Country Y, so this answer choice does not directly affect the conclusion.
(D) If this were true, the conclusion would be less logically sound. If policy makers in Country Y mostly cared about economic efficiency, they would probably prefer taxes over fixed upper limits, since taxes are described as the most economically efficient method.
(E) CORRECT. The author concludes that the best way to reduce pollution in Country Y is to institute fixed upper limits on emissions. In order to accept this conclusion, the author must assume that policy makers in Country Y will not oppose these upper limits—or, at least, that they will not oppose them as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
Step 1: Identify the Question
The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
E: tax pollutants in prop. to damage = MOST cost eff
BUT: Y: oppose taxes + many pollutants unreg.
→ best way in Y = upper limits, NOT tax
On the one hand, the author believes that the most economically efficient way to reduce air pollution is to tax emissions. However, he argues that this won’t be effective in Country Y. In Country Y, it will be more effective to institute fixed upper limits for pollutant emissions. The evidence for this is that Country Y’s policy makers oppose new taxes, and serious pollutants are not currently taxed or regulated.
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Assumption questions, the goal is to identify an assumption that is critical to the logic of the argument. The right answer will be a statement that the author must believe to be true in order to logically draw the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that, in Country Y, the best approach to reducing air pollution is instituting fixed upper limits. What else must be true, in order to logically conclude that this is the best approach?
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This doesn’t have to be true. For instance, policy makers in Country Y could vehemently oppose new taxes on pollutants, but only mildly oppose new income taxes. In this scenario, the conclusion would still be reasonable.
(B) This is a strengthener, since it implies that taxation would be unsuccessful for another reason, beyond the reasoning already provided in the argument. However, an assumption must make a statement that has to be true, not just one that strengthens the argument. This answer choice, logically, could be false even while the argument is still valid. To prove this, try the negation test: Country Y’s emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage. In this case, the conclusion of the argument could still be true, because fixed upper limits could still be a better method for other reasons.
(C) This answer seems to imply that policy makers in Country Y will be more willing to accept policies that reduce pollutant emissions in general. However, it does not support one method of reduction over another. The conclusion specifically states that one method is better than the other method in Country Y, so this answer choice does not directly affect the conclusion.
(D) If this were true, the conclusion would be less logically sound. If policy makers in Country Y mostly cared about economic efficiency, they would probably prefer taxes over fixed upper limits, since taxes are described as the most economically efficient method.
(E) CORRECT. The author concludes that the best way to reduce pollution in Country Y is to institute fixed upper limits on emissions. In order to accept this conclusion, the author must assume that policy makers in Country Y will not oppose these upper limits—or, at least, that they will not oppose them as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
31 Jul 2015, 22:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.
Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?
Ⓐ Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
Ⓑ Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
Ⓒ Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
Ⓓ Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
Ⓔ Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
EMPOWERgmat Enhanced Explanation
Type: Assumption
Boil It Down: Can’t tax -> Impose limit is best
Missing Information: The proposal is possible
Goal: Find the option that the logic of the argument requires for it to work
Analysis: This argument suddenly announces that because one remedy (increasing taxes) can’t work, that this other option (imposing limits) is the best, but that leaves a pretty big gap open. Additionally, this argument presumes that instituting a fixed upper limit is even capable of reducing emissions. How do we know that this plan could even work? We don't.
Ⓐ The argument already established that new taxes are out, so because this option raises something already established, it’s not assumed. Assumptions are never written. They are unstated, but required for the logic of the argument to work.
Ⓑ This is a 180 option. The argument actually states that the most efficient way to reduce is emissions is by taxing them, and this option seeks to directly counter that established fact.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t require a STRONG favoring of air pollution limits for it to hold. This option goes too far. Reasonable support could be enough for the argument to hold.
Ⓓ The argument also doesn’t require that the reduction in emissions occurs with maximum economic efficiency. For all we know, a reasonable degree of economic efficiency is plenty.
Ⓔ Yes! The argument absolutely presumes that policy makers would be on board with this upper limit alternative. Isn’t it really odd that the economist magically asserted that because taxes won’t be supported, that this fixed upper limit will? The argument completely presumes that this alternative is possible too.
Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?
Ⓐ Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
Ⓑ Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
Ⓒ Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
Ⓓ Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
Ⓔ Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
EMPOWERgmat Enhanced Explanation
Type: Assumption
Boil It Down: Can’t tax -> Impose limit is best
Missing Information: The proposal is possible
Goal: Find the option that the logic of the argument requires for it to work
Analysis: This argument suddenly announces that because one remedy (increasing taxes) can’t work, that this other option (imposing limits) is the best, but that leaves a pretty big gap open. Additionally, this argument presumes that instituting a fixed upper limit is even capable of reducing emissions. How do we know that this plan could even work? We don't.
Ⓐ The argument already established that new taxes are out, so because this option raises something already established, it’s not assumed. Assumptions are never written. They are unstated, but required for the logic of the argument to work.
Ⓑ This is a 180 option. The argument actually states that the most efficient way to reduce is emissions is by taxing them, and this option seeks to directly counter that established fact.
Ⓒ The argument doesn’t require a STRONG favoring of air pollution limits for it to hold. This option goes too far. Reasonable support could be enough for the argument to hold.
Ⓓ The argument also doesn’t require that the reduction in emissions occurs with maximum economic efficiency. For all we know, a reasonable degree of economic efficiency is plenty.
Ⓔ Yes! The argument absolutely presumes that policy makers would be on board with this upper limit alternative. Isn’t it really odd that the economist magically asserted that because taxes won’t be supported, that this fixed upper limit will? The argument completely presumes that this alternative is possible too.
BillyZ
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Last visit: 20 Oct 2024
Posts: 1,155
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Products:
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
Posts: 1,155
16 Apr 2017, 00:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
WillGetIt
Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.
Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?
(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?
(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
OG2017, CR590, P524
Reducing Air Pollution
Step 1: Identify the Question
The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
E: tax pollutants in prop. to damage = MOST cost eff
BUT: Y: oppose taxes + many pollutants unreg.
→ best way in Y = upper limits, NOT tax
On the one hand, the author believes that the most economically efficient way to reduce air pollution is to tax emissions. However, he argues that this won’t be effective in Country Y. In Country Y, it will be more effective to institute fixed upper limits for pollutant emissions. The evidence for this is that Country Y’s policy makers oppose new taxes, and serious pollutants are not currently taxed or regulated.
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Assumption questions, the goal is to identify an assumption that is critical to the logic of the argument. The right answer will be a statement that the author must believe to be true in order to logically draw the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that, in Country Y, the best approach to reducing air pollution is instituting fixed upper limits. What else must be true, in order to logically conclude that this is the best approach?
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This doesn’t have to be true. For instance, policy makers in Country Y could vehemently oppose new taxes on pollutants, but only mildly oppose new income taxes. In this scenario, the conclusion would still be reasonable.
(B) This is a strengthener, since it implies that taxation would be unsuccessful for another reason, beyond the reasoning already provided in the argument. However, an assumption must make a statement that has to be true, not just one that strengthens the argument. This answer choice, logically, could be false even while the argument is still valid. To prove this, try the negation test: Country Y’s emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage. In this case, the conclusion of the argument could still be true, because fixed upper limits could still be a better method for other reasons.
(C) This answer seems to imply that policy makers in Country Y will be more willing to accept policies that reduce pollutant emissions in general. However, it does not support one method of reduction over another. The conclusion specifically states that one method is better than the other method in Country Y, so this answer choice does not directly affect the conclusion.
(D) If this were true, the conclusion would be less logically sound. If policy makers in Country Y mostly cared about economic efficiency, they would probably prefer taxes over fixed upper limits, since taxes are described as the most economically efficient method.
(E) CORRECT. The author concludes that the best way to reduce pollution in Country Y is to institute fixed upper limits on emissions. In order to accept this conclusion, the author must assume that policy makers in Country Y will not oppose these upper limits—or, at least, that they will not oppose them as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
. From the argument, we already know that they strongly opposed what 
