Last visit was: 12 Jul 2025, 08:22 It is currently 12 Jul 2025, 08:22
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
User avatar
reply2spg
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Last visit: 05 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
4,335
 [156]
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 271
Kudos: 4,335
 [156]
16
Kudos
Add Kudos
138
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
abhimahna
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Last visit: 06 Jul 2024
Posts: 3,519
Own Kudos:
5,697
 [25]
Given Kudos: 346
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,519
Kudos: 5,697
 [25]
21
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
shalva
User avatar
Tuck School Moderator
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Last visit: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 203
Own Kudos:
342
 [10]
Given Kudos: 69
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools:Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
 Q50  V47
Posts: 203
Kudos: 342
 [10]
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
priyankurml
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Last visit: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 342
Own Kudos:
2,547
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
 V25
Posts: 342
Kudos: 2,547
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Selling the Helium is only way to reduce the debt burden because “current market price” supports it. What will happen if D comes true? “Current market price” will fall and government will no more capable of reducing overall debt.

IMO D
User avatar
BarneyStinson
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Last visit: 24 Sep 2010
Posts: 217
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Concentration: World Domination, Finance, Political Corporatization, Marketing, Strategy
Schools:LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
 Q47  V32
Posts: 217
Kudos: 490
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A is simple and straight-forward. What is wrong with it? Why can't it be the correct answer?
User avatar
rezaulnsu
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Last visit: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 24
Kudos: 28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

My answer is D without any doubt. Just understand that, say 100 dollar tor acquiring the stock and 25 dollar gain for market price favour. The last part 25dollar, which is a gain, can help reduce debt overall. Assumption answer anyhow tries to help to remove any inconsitency between conclusion and premises. Here, seems no such inconsitency, nor any any new things in the conclusion without the help or touch of premises. So, it might seem no way to help the conclusion to fill up a gap, since no gap available. Still, you have an opportunity to help. How? Think ..how can you give money to a guy who is too rich to get your help! still, you can help him, even without paying a dollar! This is through defending other possibilities of his expenses , for example, you can do something that will reduce his at least one way of expenses (it is like, saving a dollar from lost is like earning a new dollar).This is called defender rule!
This defender rule needs to be applied here, since no obvious gap is evident. Such rule has often a signature to recognize easily..which is..using 'not' in order to cancel out one possibility of attack.Answer D is a classic example.
User avatar
arirux92
Joined: 03 May 2015
Last visit: 30 Nov 2016
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
240
 [1]
Given Kudos: 23
Location: South Africa
Concentration: International Business, Organizational Behavior
GPA: 3.49
WE:Web Development (Insurance)
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

Premise : Govt. has stockpile ( If it can recover national debt, you can well imagine how much)

Conclusion: By selling Helium, the govt can recover its debt.

Assumption: Flooding the market won't reduce the price to less than the govt. debt

A states that the govt. has no current need for helium. This is a very tempting assumption. But It says nothing about national debt. Also. Stockpile implies that excess stored for the future. SO the govt. has already taken care for its current need.
The currect answer would be something similar to " The government shall never need the helium to be sold"

Lets negate D.

If flooding the market will reduce by 25%, then the govt will still have to raise taxes. Leading to a failure of the argument.

The correct answer is D
avatar
nishant12600
Joined: 10 Nov 2015
Last visit: 14 Oct 2017
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 105
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Products:
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 11
Kudos: 7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I m confused between B and D, need expert opinion.
sayantanc2k please help
User avatar
sayantanc2k
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,395
Own Kudos:
15,461
 [5]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,395
Kudos: 15,461
 [5]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nishant12600
I m confused between B and D, need expert opinion.
sayantanc2k please help

In addition to the explanation by abhimahna above, please note that an assumption MUST BE TRUE. Whenever a specific number or percentage is observed in an option of an assumption question, there are chances that by changing the number or percentage the implication of the option does not change. Hence assumption of that particular number or percentage need not necessarily be required. Such options can then be easily eliminated. Here instead of 25% mentioned in option B take any other larger percentage - the implication does not change. So the assumption of that specific 25% is not required. Without further analysis this option can be dropped.
User avatar
jpvemula
Joined: 23 Dec 2015
Last visit: 23 Oct 2019
Posts: 20
Own Kudos:
21
 [1]
Given Kudos: 146
Posts: 20
Kudos: 21
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO D
My explaination

Lets total debt of the Govt. be $1000, of which $100 of debt was taken for purchasing and stockpiling Helium.

Now the current market price of Helium is 25% more. i.e $125.

So, if we sell the Helium @ $125 , we not only pay the debt of procuring the Helium, but also reduce the overall debt to $875 ($1000 -$ 125).

So, here we are assuming that Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent..
Negate it, Attempts to sell the government’s helium will depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent..
i.e current market price $125*(.75) = $93.75. In this case, we did not even get the price at which have procured and stored the Helium.
Hence the conclusion breaks.

Thanks,
JP
User avatar
umg
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Last visit: 26 Jun 2020
Posts: 216
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 111
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE:General Management (Other)
Products:
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 216
Kudos: 660
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gamerguy0074
Can any one explain why is B wrong?
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.

Removing the Double Negative highlighted above, we get

B. Twenty-five percent 25% of the debt the government has accumulated in from Stockpiling helium is a significant portion of the government’s Total debt.

So what? Even if this is the correct assumption, how would selling off that stocked Helium is a better option than raising taxes or vice versa? This assumption does not affect our conclusion in any possible manner. As a matter of fact even if the 25% helium debt is a minuscule portion of govt's total debt, our conclusion is not affected.
User avatar
AliciaSierra
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Last visit: 14 Jun 2024
Posts: 748
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,350
Products:
Posts: 748
Kudos: 636
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.


conclusion says "Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well." So it quantity can be anything..passage is claiming that some amount will get reduced so B doesn't make sense. Because argument is just claiming that some(small or large %) debt will get reduced.
User avatar
adkikani
User avatar
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Last visit: 24 Dec 2023
Posts: 1,238
Own Kudos:
1,317
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Posts: 1,238
Kudos: 1,317
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja ammuseeru VeritasKarishma generis nightblade354

Is my arguments understanding and PoE correct?

Quote:
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
So, what must be true for my conclusion to be valid?

Quote:
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Start with the conclusion:
Govt can pay off its debt and also reduce it by selling helium (to market)

Logic:
Current stock of helium is 25% more than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it
So if we sell EXCESS helium, we can pay off past debt

Quote:
A. The government has no current need for helium.
Irrelevant to conclusion

Quote:
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
Though I fell for this, I have different reasons to eliminate it than above.
This talks about 25% of debt and arguments talks about 25% of stock of Helium. Can I reject on
the grounds that both are talking about different subjects?

The usage of double negatives in (B) by few members seems to be nightmare. :oops: :shocked

Quote:
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
Who cares what is in lawyer's interest, out of scope.

Quote:
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
If I negate this, I arrive at
Attempts to sell the government’s helium will depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
Hmm.. so helium market prices are down than earlier. Then does it mean that people will reduce buying helium?
Does not usually a reduction in price increase in demand of goods?


Quote:
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.
costs for shutting down storage houses for helium are irrelevant to the argument.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,101
Own Kudos:
74,280
 [7]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,101
Kudos: 74,280
 [7]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

Premises:
Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt
Government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it.

Conclusion:
By selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Let's say when the Govt acquired and stored the helium, it incurred a debt of $100. Now the value of that helium is $125.
So the conclusion says that if you sell the helium, you can pay off the $100 debt AND you can further pay off $25 of the Govt debt.

A. The government has no current need for helium.

We need to worry only about how selling off helium will impact the current debt level of the Govt. Whether selling off helium is ok from other angles is not relevant to our argument.


B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.

The figure of 25% given here is just to confuse you. It has no relevance and no connection to the 25% increase in value of helium. The option could very well have been "the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt". It doesn't matter whether this debt is a small or big part of the overall debt. The conclusion only says that "this debt" can be taken care of and its overall debt can be reduced. That will be true irrespective of the relative size of this debt.

C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.

The lawmaker's interest is irrelevant.

D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.

The impact of selling helium on Govt's debt is based on the current price of helium. If the current price of helium depresses because of too much helium supply in the market, it may not sell at the current price. If the reduction in price is more than the "25% that it was extra", selling off helium may not be able to take care of "this debt".
This is a valid assumption.

E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

The costs incurred in closing facilities are irrelevant. We just need to worry about what we will get when we sell the helium.

Answer (D)
User avatar
pkshankar
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Last visit: 25 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 42
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
Posts: 64
Kudos: 51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Debt accumulated in acquiring and storing helium = x
At current market price, cost of helium =1.25x
Conclusion - by selling helium, government can reduce it's debt.
Now let us negate D.
Price of helium reduces by 25%
Hence, price of helium now = 1.25x - 0.75x = 0.9375x, which is of course lower than the sent accumulated on acquiring and storing helium, which is 'x'.
Hence in this case government would suffer a loss hence as negated statement destroys the conclusion, the answer to this is 'D'


Sent from my ONE E1003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,101
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,101
Kudos: 74,280
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

Premises:
Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt
Government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it.

Conclusion:
By selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Let's say when the Govt acquired and stored the helium, it incurred a debt of $100. Now the value of that helium is $125.
So the conclusion says that if you sell the helium, you can pay off the $100 debt AND you can further pay off $25 of the Govt debt.

A. The government has no current need for helium.

We need to worry only about how selling off helium will impact the current debt level of the Govt. Whether selling off helium is ok from other angles is not relevant to our argument.


B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.

The figure of 25% given here is just to confuse you. It has no relevance and no connection to the 25% increase in value of helium. The option could very well have been "the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt". It doesn't matter whether this debt is a small or big part of the overall debt. The conclusion only says that "this debt" can be taken care of and its overall debt can be reduced. That will be true irrespective of the relative size of this debt.

C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.

The lawmaker's interest is irrelevant.

D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.

The impact of selling helium on Govt's debt is based on the current price of helium. If the current price of helium depresses because of too much helium supply in the market, it may not sell at the current price. If the reduction in price is more than the "25% that it was extra", selling off helium may not be able to take care of "this debt".
This is a valid assumption.

E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

The costs incurred in closing facilities are irrelevant. We just need to worry about what we will get when we sell the helium.

Answer (D)

Quote:
Can you please help me inletting me know if Answer option B for the question is opposite of the fact mentioned in the Argument?

No, option (B) is not against what is mentioned in the argument.

The argument tells us that the helium's current market price is 25% more than the debt incurred in buying and storing it.
Option (B) says that 25% of the debt incurred in buying and storing helium is a significant amount, a relatively big amount. So it will bring down the debt by a significant amount if helium is sold. This is additional info. But it is not an assumption and hence not the answer.
Whether the decrease in debt is a big amount or a small amount, it doesn't matter to our argument. The fact remains that the debt will come down.
avatar
moonriver0523
Joined: 15 Jul 2018
Last visit: 12 Nov 2020
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 412
Posts: 7
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pkshankar
Debt accumulated in acquiring and storing helium = x
At current market price, cost of helium =1.25x
Conclusion - by selling helium, government can reduce it's debt.
Now let us negate D.
Price of helium reduces by 25%
Hence, price of helium now = 1.25x - 0.75x = 0.9375x, which is of course lower than the sent accumulated on acquiring and storing helium, which is 'x'.
Hence in this case government would suffer a loss hence as negated statement destroys the conclusion, the answer to this is 'D'

Let’s take option (D) as an assumption:

Scenario A:
Price of helium reduces by 24% (<25%)
Price of helium now = 1.25x * 0.76 = 0.95x
---Cannot cover the debt

Scenario B:
Price of helium reduces by 10% (<25%)
Price of helium now = 1.25x * 0.9 = 1.125x
---Cover the debt.

That’s why I can’t justify option (D)
avatar
Maverick94
Joined: 20 Aug 2019
Last visit: 02 Feb 2023
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 9
Posts: 6
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.


Hi, what does "costs in closing its facilities" actually mean in option E?
User avatar
ktzsikka
Joined: 28 Apr 2021
Last visit: 27 Mar 2025
Posts: 152
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 125
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Energy)
Posts: 152
Kudos: 396
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.


E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

The costs incurred in closing facilities are irrelevant. We just need to worry about what we will get when we sell the helium.

Answer (D)
VeritasKarishma
I understand why option D is correct but I am unable to eliminate option E (even by negation)
What if the costs incurred in closing the facilities are more than the 25% profit that the govt. will earn on selling the stockpiled Helium? In that case, it becomes essential to know that government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

Please help!
Thanks in advance.
:please:
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,101
Own Kudos:
74,280
 [2]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,101
Kudos: 74,280
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ktzsikka
VeritasKarishma
reply2spg
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more, at current market prices, than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it. Therefore, by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt but reduce its overall debt as well.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The government has no current need for helium.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.


E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

The costs incurred in closing facilities are irrelevant. We just need to worry about what we will get when we sell the helium.

Answer (D)
VeritasKarishma
I understand why option D is correct but I am unable to eliminate option E (even by negation)
What if the costs incurred in closing the facilities are more than the 25% profit that the govt. will earn on selling the stockpiled Helium? In that case, it becomes essential to know that government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium.

Please help!
Thanks in advance.
:please:


We are told that currently the Govt is incurring costs for storing helium. If we sell it, we will be able to eliminate the acquisition & storage cost debts and some more.
What we do with the premises where we currently store helium is irrelevant. It is beyond the scope of our argument. It is not discussed. Perhaps something else will be stored there. Perhaps it will be closed down. Perhaps it will be torn down and a residential complex will be made in its place. We don't know.
The point is that we don't need to assume what might happen to it and what may the cost of that be. It is out of scope for us. The argument does not discuss it.
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts