GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

It is currently 27 May 2018, 06:42

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter

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

Hide Tags

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5108
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Boldface revision: Local authorities are considering an amendment [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2015, 20:24
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Posts: 656
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Boldface revision: Local authorities are considering an amendment [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Mar 2015, 02:18
Chose E. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area - this sentence is a conclusion.
_________________

If my post was helpful, press Kudos. If not, then just press Kudos !!!

Expert Post
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5784
Re: Boldface revision: Local authorities are considering an amendment [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2015, 23:22
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether. In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.

B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.

C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.

D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.

E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction

if we go through the Q..
prediction/conclusion- However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area...
now the second gives a reason to support this.. only E gives this as a choice..
ans E
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html


GMAT online Tutor

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5108
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Boldface revision: Local authorities are considering an amendment [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2015, 19:55
The author concludes that raising the fine to $1,000 would have the unintended
effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. When determining the
function of the two bold statements, we must consider how they relate to this
conclusion: the first bold portion weighs against the conclusion, while the second
bold portion supports the conclusion. The correct answer will represent these
relationships.
(A) The “prediction” mentioned here refers to the author’s conclusion (raising the
fine to $1,000 would increase the amount of litter). This answer choice incorrectly
states that the first bold portion supports this conclusion. Also, this choice
incorrectly states that the second bold statement is the prediction, or conclusion.
(B) This choice incorrectly states that the author’s prediction, or conclusion, is
consistent with the first bold statement when in fact it predicts the exact opposite
outcome. Further, this answer states that the second bold portion weighs against
the author’s conclusion when in fact it supports the conclusion.
(C) The second bold portion does not come as a consequence of the first. In fact,
the two bold portions are in complete contrast to one another.
(D) The second bold portion is not the main position that the author defends. The
main position is that raising the fine to $1,000 would increase the amount of litter
in the picnic area.
(E) CORRECT. This answer choice correctly identifies the first bold portion as a
statement of causation that does not support the author’s claim, and the second
bold statement as a line of logic that does support this claim.
_________________

Have an MBA application Question? ASK ME ANYTHING!

My Stuff: Four Years to 760 | MBA Trends for Indian Applicants

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Posts: 83
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2016, 09:55
why is c wrong here ?
The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this
fact.

Second does sound like a consequence of first.
Can somebody explain why is it wrong ?
_________________

Cheers,
Shri
-------------------------------
GMAT is not an Exam... it is a war .. Let's Conquer !!!

1 KUDOS received
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3475
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2016, 11:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
Shrivathsan wrote:
why is c wrong here ?
The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this
fact.

Second does sound like a consequence of first.
Can somebody explain why is it wrong ?


2nd is not the consequence of the 1st. rather the consequence of first i "However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the
amount of litter in the picnic area.". 2nd is strengthening this consequence. Hence, C is wrong.
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

NEW --> Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

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

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2734
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Boldface revision: Local authorities are considering an amendment [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2017, 16:39
souvik101990 wrote:
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether. In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.

B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.

C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.

D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.

E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.



Either I got smarter or the question is definitely not a 700 level one :)

First one is 100% a fact.
Second is a reasoning why the amendment wouldn't be considered a good one.
E fits perfectly!
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 668
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2017, 03:19
The author concludes that raising the fine to $1,000 would have the unintended
effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. When determining the
function of the two bold statements, we must consider how they relate to this
conclusion: the first bold portion weighs against the conclusion, while the second
bold portion supports the conclusion. The correct answer will represent these
relationships.

The causation refers to something that results from something that has happened.

for eg: X->Y

Here the increase in fine that has been added has caused the people to litter less.

Option E states that the statement of causation (which is a fact and has actually happened) will not happen. The line of reasoning by the author is given in the second boldface sentence.

Option E :- "The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.The causation refers to something that results from something that has happened".

(E) CORRECT. This answer choice correctly identifies the first bold portion as a
statement of causation that does not support the author’s claim, and the second
bold statement as a line of logic that does support this claim.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 740
Premium Member
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2017, 08:37
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 280
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2017, 21:48
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.

In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

KEY: IDENTIFY CONCLUSION --> However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area
> BF2 is a premise supporting this conclusion


A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
- BF2 does not support a prediction made by BF1

B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.
- author does not predict causation from BF1 will be repeated. BF2 does not raise evidence against this -- they're not directly related

C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.
- BF2 is not a consequence of BF1

D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
- BF2 is not a position the author defends. BF2 is more like a premise for the conclusion of the argument

E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.
- correct as is

Kudos please if you find this helpful :)
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter   [#permalink] 19 Sep 2017, 21:48

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter

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


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®.