Last visit was: 24 Jul 2024, 04:40 It is currently 24 Jul 2024, 04:40
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: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 113
Own Kudos [?]: 209 [59]
Given Kudos: 85
Location: United Arab Emirates
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V31
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.2
WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2018
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [5]
Given Kudos: 17
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2018
Posts: 190
Own Kudos [?]: 324 [2]
Given Kudos: 123
GPA: 3.3
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2018
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [3]
Given Kudos: 17
Send PM
Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

it's irrelevant to the point that we need to make here. those whose kids go to private school are already paying the same amount as those whose kids go to public school. this is a sort of restatement of what Gloria said rather than a reply.

Posted from my mobile device
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15148
Own Kudos [?]: 66828 [2]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
eabhgoy wrote:
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.


What is the source of this problem? Roger's counter-argument itself makes little sense.
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Posts: 632
Own Kudos [?]: 540 [0]
Given Kudos: 4092
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Send PM
Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma wrote:
eabhgoy wrote:
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.


What is the source of this problem? Roger's counter-argument itself makes little sense.


Mam , this question is from 1000 series .
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Apr 2021
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
Hi, new user here, so forgive my inexperience. I can't seem to rule out B. Gloria starts by saying some people believe that people who are not using a public service should be exempt from paying for such public service. Then proceeds to argue buy equating public school tax to public water tax and private school use to bottle water use. Roger counters poorly saying that attendance (to any school) is required by law and private school fulfills that legal requirement. Therefore, paying for both public school tax and private school costs would be paying "twice." Glora seems to focus on the fact that if seemingly nobody complains about paying for public water and buying bottle water, then why should people complain about paying for public school and buying private school? Roger seems to think paying for both public and private school is akin to buying the same product twice from the same provider so the provider should refund one of them. Answer A is about necessity. It says since drinking water is not required, but necessary, therefore everyone should pay. But if some people get their drinking water from bottle water, then why should they pay for both public water and bottle water? This is a weak refute at best. Answer B is about price. If they can pay for private school, then they can pay for public school. These people shouldn't have a problem paying for both since they can afford it. The Question stems asks a way to refute Roger's charge that Gloria's argument is illogical. Her argument using the bottle water example: people can afford both public water and bottle water and don't seem to complain about paying for both. This centers around price. Why is Answer B ruled out, if Answer B talks more about price than Answer A? At what point am I misunderstanding this problem?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Dec 2021
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
Christophorus wrote:
Hi, new user here, so forgive my inexperience. I can't seem to rule out B. Gloria starts by saying some people believe that people who are not using a public service should be exempt from paying for such public service. Then proceeds to argue buy equating public school tax to public water tax and private school use to bottle water use. Roger counters poorly saying that attendance (to any school) is required by law and private school fulfills that legal requirement. Therefore, paying for both public school tax and private school costs would be paying "twice." Glora seems to focus on the fact that if seemingly nobody complains about paying for public water and buying bottle water, then why should people complain about paying for public school and buying private school? Roger seems to think paying for both public and private school is akin to buying the same product twice from the same provider so the provider should refund one of them. Answer A is about necessity. It says since drinking water is not required, but necessary, therefore everyone should pay. But if some people get their drinking water from bottle water, then why should they pay for both public water and bottle water? This is a weak refute at best. Answer B is about price. If they can pay for private school, then they can pay for public school. These people shouldn't have a problem paying for both since they can afford it. The Question stems asks a way to refute Roger's charge that Gloria's argument is illogical. Her argument using the bottle water example: people can afford both public water and bottle water and don't seem to complain about paying for both. This centers around price. Why is Answer B ruled out, if Answer B talks more about price than Answer A? At what point am I misunderstanding this problem?


According to my understanding, the argument presented by Roger says that Water is not a necessity (legal in this case) while school education is. The reasoning is not based on price (however probable it might be in real life scenario) which is why A (water drinking as a necessity as well) is marked in the OA. Hope this helps :)
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Dec 2020
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Send PM
Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
I am not understanding how A can be the answer?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Feb 2019
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 84 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Location: Uzbekistan
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 670 Q51 V28
GPA: 3.4
Send PM
Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.

This response directly addresses Roger's assertion that school attendance is a matter of legal requirement. Gloria points out that the law does not specifically mandate parents to send their children to private schools; it only requires that children attend some form of school, whether public or private. Therefore, the argument for tuition tax credits is based on the idea that parents should have a choice in the type of school their child attends and should not be forced to pay for public schooling if they opt for a private education.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17533
Own Kudos [?]: 869 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#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: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6991 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts