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

 It is currently 23 May 2019, 08:06

### 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

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

# Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2012
Posts: 61
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2014, 22:53
1
16
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (01:54) correct 41% (02:05) wrong based on 873 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed a plan to allow small (as defined by law) retail establishments to deduct the cost of unsold inventory from their tax liability. The association's spokesperson emphasized that, since smaller businesses have less money with which to purchase inventory, the proposed measure would help those smaller retailers remain competitive with their larger counterparts. Nevertheless, in practical terms, fair enforcement of the plan would be infeasible, because ________.

(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions
(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases
(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date
(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies legally as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal
(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 433
Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

Updated on: 15 Sep 2014, 20:14
1
1
Thanks for sharing the questions.
My 2 cents.

Premise:
Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed a plan to allow small (as defined by law) retail establishments to deduct the cost of unsold inventory from their tax liability.
The association's spokesperson emphasized that, since smaller businesses have less money with which to purchase inventory, the proposed measure would help those smaller retailers remain competitive with their larger counterparts.
Conclusion:
Nevertheless, in practical terms, fair enforcement of the plan would be in-feasible, because ________.

Assumption:
The whole viability of this proposal depends upon the point that its is possible to make the distinction between unsold inventory and other inventories.

PS: IMO this shall be a strengthen question as we r looking for an option that supports author's conclusion.

(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions
>>Hiring new emp doesn't help in evaluating fair enforcement of the plan.
(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases
>>Correct.

(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date
>>Opposite of wht we r looking for.
(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies legally as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal
>>Not relevant.
(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems
>>Not relevant.

Originally posted by JarvisR on 14 Sep 2014, 06:24.
Last edited by JarvisR on 15 Sep 2014, 20:14, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Status: How easy it is?
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 89
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Other)

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2014, 16:29
JarvisR wrote:
Thanks for sharing the questions.
My 2 cents.

Premise:
Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed a plan to allow small (as defined by law) retail establishments to deduct the cost of unsold inventory from their tax liability.
The association's spokesperson emphasized that, since smaller businesses have less money with which to purchase inventory, the proposed measure would help those smaller retailers remain competitive with their larger counterparts.
Conclusion:
Nevertheless, in practical terms, fair enforcement of the plan would be in-feasible, because ________.

The whole viability of this proposal depends upon the point that its is possible to make the distinction between unsold inventory and other inventories. If it is not the case, then its SB wont be able to reap benefit from it.

PS: IMO this shall be a strengthen question as we r looking for an option that supports author's conclusion.

(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions
>>Hiring new emp doesn't help in evaluating fair enforcement of the plan.
(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases
>>Correct.

(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date
>>Opposite of wht we r looking for.
(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies legally as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal
>>Not relevant.
(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems
>>Not relevant.

I don't think that the issue is whether Small Business will be able to reap benefit. The issue IMO is the fair enforcement of plan. The Government will not allow such a policy to be passed where some people can take undue advantage because of underlying loopholes (not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases).
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 433
Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2014, 20:10
nitin6305 wrote:
JarvisR wrote:
Thanks for sharing the questions.
My 2 cents.

Premise:
Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed a plan to allow small (as defined by law) retail establishments to deduct the cost of unsold inventory from their tax liability.
The association's spokesperson emphasized that, since smaller businesses have less money with which to purchase inventory, the proposed measure would help those smaller retailers remain competitive with their larger counterparts.
Conclusion:
Nevertheless, in practical terms, fair enforcement of the plan would be in-feasible, because ________.

The whole viability of this proposal depends upon the point that its is possible to make the distinction between unsold inventory and other inventories. If it is not the case, then its SB wont be able to reap benefit from it.

PS: IMO this shall be a strengthen question as we r looking for an option that supports author's conclusion.

(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions
>>Hiring new emp doesn't help in evaluating fair enforcement of the plan.
(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases
>>Correct.

(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date
>>Opposite of wht we r looking for.
(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies legally as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal
>>Not relevant.
(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems
>>Not relevant.

I don't think that the issue is whether Small Business will be able to reap benefit. The issue IMO is the fair enforcement of plan. The Government will not allow such a policy to be passed where some people can take undue advantage because of underlying loopholes (not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases).

Hey nitin6305,
How r u?
I don't think that the issue is whether Small Business will be able to reap benefit. The issue IMO is the fair enforcement of plan.
>> I agree that's true. Its the main conclusion of arg. (as I mentioned in my post)
Sometimes while typing the solution, I just type my rephrased version of the statements from the arg.
However, IMO as long as we can mark correct assumption and conclusion from the argument, that should be fine. How we rephrase something shouldn't impact the selection of correct answer.
Anyways, thank you for pointing it out.I have edited it in my original post for clarity sake.
Regards.
Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2016
Posts: 28

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2016, 10:44
nitin6305 wrote:
JarvisR wrote:
Thanks for sharing the questions.
My 2 cents.

Premise:
Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed a plan to allow small (as defined by law) retail establishments to deduct the cost of unsold inventory from their tax liability.
The association's spokesperson emphasized that, since smaller businesses have less money with which to purchase inventory, the proposed measure would help those smaller retailers remain competitive with their larger counterparts.
Conclusion:
Nevertheless, in practical terms, fair enforcement of the plan would be in-feasible, because ________.

The whole viability of this proposal depends upon the point that its is possible to make the distinction between unsold inventory and other inventories. If it is not the case, then its SB wont be able to reap benefit from it.

PS: IMO this shall be a strengthen question as we r looking for an option that supports author's conclusion.

(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions
>>Hiring new emp doesn't help in evaluating fair enforcement of the plan.
(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases
>>Correct.

(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date
>>Opposite of wht we r looking for.
(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies legally as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal
>>Not relevant.
(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems
>>Not relevant.

I don't think that the issue is whether Small Business will be able to reap benefit. The issue IMO is the fair enforcement of plan. The Government will not allow such a policy to be passed where some people can take undue advantage because of underlying loopholes (not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases).

I did not understand how you have reached that assumption?
Can you please explain more clearly??
_________________
“Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.”
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2873
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2016, 12:12
emmafoster wrote:
nitin6305 wrote:
JarvisR wrote:
Thanks for sharing the questions.
My 2 cents.

Premise:
Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed a plan to allow small (as defined by law) retail establishments to deduct the cost of unsold inventory from their tax liability.
The association's spokesperson emphasized that, since smaller businesses have less money with which to purchase inventory, the proposed measure would help those smaller retailers remain competitive with their larger counterparts.
Conclusion:
Nevertheless, in practical terms, fair enforcement of the plan would be in-feasible, because ________.

The whole viability of this proposal depends upon the point that its is possible to make the distinction between unsold inventory and other inventories. If it is not the case, then its SB wont be able to reap benefit from it.

PS: IMO this shall be a strengthen question as we r looking for an option that supports author's conclusion.

(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions
>>Hiring new emp doesn't help in evaluating fair enforcement of the plan.
(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases
>>Correct.

(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date
>>Opposite of wht we r looking for.
(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies legally as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal
>>Not relevant.
(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems
>>Not relevant.

I don't think that the issue is whether Small Business will be able to reap benefit. The issue IMO is the fair enforcement of plan. The Government will not allow such a policy to be passed where some people can take undue advantage because of underlying loopholes (not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases).

I did not understand how you have reached that assumption?
Can you please explain more clearly??

This is not an assumption question, but an explain question. WHY fair enforcement is not feasible?
BECAUSE it is not possible to differentiate unsold inventory from owner's personal purchase - If it cannot be determined whether an item is an unsold inventory or a personal property of the owner, then it would not be possible to determine whether to exempt the item from tax liability.
Director
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 659

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2016, 03:21
Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed a plan to allow small (as defined by law) retail establishments to deduct the cost of unsold inventory from their tax liability. The association's spokesperson emphasized that, since smaller businesses have less money with which to purchase inventory, the proposed measure would help those smaller retailers remain competitive with their larger counterparts. Nevertheless, in practical terms, fair enforcement of the plan would be infeasible, because ________.

Well !! This question is a Fill in the blank assumption question and there is a blank after indicator word BECAUSE which means we have to explain the reason as to why the enforcement of the plan would be infeasible ?
Here the conclusion is: fair enforcement of the plan would be infeasible
Premise:
- PLAN PROPOSES TO ALLOW SME TO DEDUCT COST OF UNSOLD INVENTORY
- SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE LESS MONEY AND BENEFICIAL FOR THEM TO STAY IN THE COMPETITION
Practically this plan is not sound. There can be few reasons for this:
1) SME could misuse this power
2) Some businesses could show that they have less money to purchase inventory
Let’s now take a look at the choices
(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions
This choice is OUT OF SCOPE and does not tell us as to why the plan would be infeasible.

(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases
This is the correct choice as stated in our pre-thinking. If it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the personal purchases, then the conclusion is strengthened and thus the plan is not feasible as stated. Even if
we negate this statement, it confirms our selection.
Negated statement: It is POSSIBLE to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietor’s personal purchases. If this is so the VERY GOOD. OUR PROBLEM AS STATED IN PRE-THINKING IS SOLVED AND WE CAN IMPLEMENT THE PLAN. BUT WAIT!! The conclusion shatters.

(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date
INCORRECT and does not explain the reason behind the main purpose of this question

(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal
OUT OF SCOPE

(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems
OUT OF SCOPE
_________________
Help me make my explanation better by providing a logical feedback.

If you liked the post, HIT KUDOS !!

Don't quit.............Do it.
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2018, 03:17
Pre-thinking:
A plan is given and conclusion talks about the infeasiblity of the plan. we have to find out the assumption behind the infeasiblity. We have to look for the options which says that its not possible to implement the plan. - may be outcome will not be good. - May be it will create some mess.

(A) several new state employees would have to be hired to audit the new deductions - out of scope
(B) it is not possible to distinguish unsold inventory from the store proprietors' personal purchases - first on the lines of conclusion. adding to that what if it is possible to distinguish between unsold inventory and the store proprietors' personal purchases. Well in this case one can definitely file tax. conclusion will fall. this must be the choice.
(C) stores would have to repay the deducted amount of tax if they sold the inventory in question at a later date - this choice us also supporting the conclusion.but nigetion is not breaking the conclusion. I stand with B as correct choice.
(D) the threshold of sales below which a business legally qualifies legally as "small" was set by the state legislature in response to a different proposal - already defined in argument(by law) which means this should not be a problem.
(E) small businesses are less likely than their larger counterparts to have computerized or otherwise automated inventory systems --- out of scope.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Intern
Joined: 11 Sep 2017
Posts: 34
Schools: IMD '21
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2018, 07:39
I have a doubt with option D
Can we not doubt that this rule will be implied only for small industries and what if its not possible to differentiate accurately between small and large industries.
Choice D slightly points on this particular aspect. Can someone pl explain
Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2018
Posts: 92
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V31

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2018, 00:48
hassu13 wrote:
I have a doubt with option D
Can we not doubt that this rule will be implied only for small industries and what if its not possible to differentiate accurately between small and large industries.
Choice D slightly points on this particular aspect. Can someone pl explain

Hey hassu13,

Out of exposure to various CR questions on the forum, I think what you are thinking is right but indirect. In CR questions we are looking for answers which can directly answer the question asked without having any further gaps because the argument itself has a gap already. An answer must be airtight as most of the experts pitch it. There should not be more assumptions made after selecting the answer choice for the argument to be valid or to hold.
_________________
Kudos to Kudos

And yeah, definitely aim for a level of accuracy where managing time will not be a burden anymore.
Re: Legislator: Recently, the state's small-business association proposed   [#permalink] 01 Oct 2018, 00:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by