GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Sep 2018, 21:40

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

Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 481
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2009, 20:17
5
42
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (01:18) correct 36% (01:25) wrong based on 2010 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3672
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2016, 05:28
7
nishant12600 wrote:
I m confused between B and D, need expert opinion.
sayantanc2k please help



Notice, conclusion is that selling helium will reduce the overall debt of the government.

In B, we are given that 25% of the total debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion.

Negate it, 25% of the total debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is an insignificant portion. So, what is insignificant here?? Is it 1% or 30% or what? We don't know. May be its 30%. So, selling it may reduce that 30% amount. We are no where given the conclusion that the larger portion of the overall debt is reduced. So, whether its insignificant or significant, the debt is obviously going to reduce. hence, this statement doesn't shatter the conclusion. Hence, incorrect.

Now, option D : 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. Now, since we are saying that the market price will be reduced by more than 25%, so it casts doubt whether we will be able to pay the debt. We are given that it is currently at 25% higher than its actual price. So, if the price is reduced by 25%, we may actually get the lower amount of money that would lead to not able to pay the helium price as well. Hence, the conclusion is shattered.

lets say Helium bought at 100, Current price = 125, after selling reduced price = 93.75, which is less than the original price. I hope its clear now.
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!



Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

General Discussion
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2009, 04:14
1
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
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 345
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Feb 2010, 16:32
A is simple and straight-forward. What is wrong with it? Why can't it be the correct answer?
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

Tuck Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 286
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2010, 04:11
4
1
BarneyStinson wrote:
A is simple and straight-forward. What is wrong with it? Why can't it be the correct answer?


Main conclusion of the argument says that helium can be sold to pay off the government debt (well some part of it).

Let's assume that government does in fact have some urgent need of helium. Does this fact change anything? You can still sell the helium and pay off the debt (as long as market price are high enough). The conclusion still holds.

The crucial assumption argument depends on concerns market prices. If prices decrease by more than 25%, there will be no more money left to pay off public debt.

So IMO it should be (D)
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 45
GMAT ToolKit User
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Dec 2015, 11:30
reply2spg wrote:
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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 224
Location: South Africa
Concentration: International Business, Organizational Behavior
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2016, 23:45
reply2spg wrote:
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
_________________

Kudos if I helped ;)

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Nov 2015
Posts: 14
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Reviews Badge
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2016, 01:37
I m confused between B and D, need expert opinion.
sayantanc2k please help
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3112
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2016, 11:36
3
nishant12600 wrote:
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.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2015
Posts: 23
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Sep 2016, 00:39
1
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 266
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2017, 08:29
gamerguy0074 wrote:
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.
_________________

I'd appreciate learning about the grammatical errors in my posts

Please hit Kudos If my Solution helps

My Debrief for 750 - https://gmatclub.com/forum/from-720-to-750-one-of-the-most-difficult-pleatues-to-overcome-246420.html

My CR notes - https://gmatclub.com/forum/patterns-in-cr-questions-243450.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 382
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2018, 14:14
reply2spg wrote:
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.
Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1195
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2018, 17:58
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.
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8288
Location: Pune, India
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2018, 03:01
reply2spg wrote:
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)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 87
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
CAT Tests
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2018, 05:52
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
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing &nbs [#permalink] 11 Sep 2018, 05:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.