It is currently 15 Dec 2017, 15:47

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Olin (St. Louis) R1 | Tuck R1 | Ross R1 | Fuqua R1

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In order to raise revenue, the federal government planned a

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 49

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 15

Re: In order to raise revenue, the federal government planned a [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Jul 2016, 01:38
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:17) correct 36% (01:35) wrong based on 1258 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Hi All,

While i agree that option C talks about the penalties which are abolished as per the new proposal, I want to explain why did it become a contender in the first place. Once we understand that, I will be able to explain why is it not a strengthener actually.

The conclusion said that the federal govt will collect a far lower PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL TAX owed by delinquents than did state governments. We need to strengthen the conclusion and I will provide an example of how option C SEEMS to do that.

EXAMPLE

A person A owed 100 \$ as federal and 100 \$ as state tax. Now lets assume federal penalty was 10 % of the tax owed and state penalty was 2 %

So total taxes with the penalty:

Federal : 110 \$
State: 102 \$

However since the proposed plan only collects 100 dollars in each case, state government earned 98 percent of the total tax it COULD have received ( 100/ 102) whereas federal government only receives 90 percent ( 100/110).

BUT the problem here is that we missed a key statement in the premise itself. The premise states that the new plan allows the delinquents to pay the TOTAL owed tax WITHOUT the penalties. Then later in the conclusion it actually refers to the total tax ( without the penalties) and not actually the total tax the govt COULD have earned.

I made the same mistake and I realised that we need to take official questions just by what is written and not what can be implied. If the question does not explicitly mention COULD, we shouldnt assume.

I hope that this explaination is able to calm the storms in some of your heads. Also I am very new to the verbal analysis culture and I will be more than happy to take feedbacks from the any1 who find the explanation above flawed!.

All the best
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 15

Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 49

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 15

Re: In order to raise revenue, the federal government planned a [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Jul 2016, 01:39
Hi All,

While i agree that option C talks about the penalties which are abolished as per the new proposal, I want to explain why did it become a contender in the first place. Once we understand that, I will be able to explain why is it not a strengthener actually.

The conclusion said that the federal govt will collect a far lower PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL TAX owed by delinquents than did state governments. We need to strengthen the conclusion and I will provide an example how option C SEEMS to do that.

EXAMPLE
A person A owed 100 \$ as federal and 100 \$ as state tax. Now lets assume federal penalty was 10 % of the tax owed and state penalty was 2 %

So total taxes with the penalty:

Federal : 110 \$
State: 102 \$

However since the proposed plan only collects 100 dollars in each case, state government earned 98 percent of the total tax it COULD have received ( 100/ 102) whereas federal government only receives 90 percent ( 100/110).

BUT the problem here is that we missed a key statement in the premise itself. The premise states that the new plan allows the delinquents to pay the TOTAL owed tax WITHOUT the penalties. Then later in the conclusion it actually refers to the total tax ( without the penalties) and not actually the total tax the govt COULD have earned.

I made the same mistake and I realised that we need to take official questions just by what is written and not what can be implied. If the question does not explicitly mention COULD, we shouldnt assume.

I hope that this explaination is able to calm the storms in some of your heads. Also I am very new to the verbal analysis culture and I will be more than happy to take feedbacks from the any1 who find the explanation above flawed!.

All the best

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 15

Re: In order to raise revenue, the federal government planned a   [#permalink] 31 Jul 2016, 01:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In order to raise revenue, the federal government planned a

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.