Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 21:10 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 21:10

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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Posts: 117
Own Kudos [?]: 1262 [40]
Given Kudos: 2
Concentration: Finance
Schools:RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
 Q49  V35
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 107 [5]
Given Kudos: 28
Send PM
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92900
Own Kudos [?]: 618840 [1]
Given Kudos: 81588
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 336
Own Kudos [?]: 1821 [3]
Given Kudos: 11
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
Send PM
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
3
Kudos

(1) MAIN POINT: The fine will not work this time
(2) The first: the fine has worked many times (The author accepted this fact)
(3) The second:Explanation on why it will not work this time


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

• 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.

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


• The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
The position is not highlighted.

• 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.

Answer: E
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11170
Own Kudos [?]: 31894 [1]
Given Kudos: 290
Send PM
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Posts: 51
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Send PM
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
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 ?
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Posts: 3600
Own Kudos [?]: 5425 [1]
Given Kudos: 346
Send PM
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
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.
Director
Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 510
Own Kudos [?]: 3378 [0]
Given Kudos: 877
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 172
Own Kudos [?]: 601 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE:Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Send PM
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
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 :)
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17213
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne