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

 It is currently 20 Jul 2018, 04:01

### 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

# Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 201
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 06:51
1
13
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:19) correct 37% (01:10) wrong based on 623 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5125
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Boldface revision: Local authorities are considering an amendment  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2015, 20:24
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.
_________________
##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 310
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 08:26
"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.

I will go for 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.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: PMP
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 271
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 09:36
I'll go with E.

because tha author says "However, raising the fine to \$1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area". So he is sure the statement of causation is not going to work in this case and hence provided reasoning to support it.
_________________

Thanks, Sri
-------------------------------
keep uppp...ing the tempo...

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip

Intern
Joined: 13 May 2009
Posts: 14
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 11:17
I will also go with E.
B seems incorrect as author never says that the first statement would hold true always.
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 201
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 12:12
OA is E

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.
Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 570
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2011, 22:33
+1 for E.

Both the bold-face portions fall in the "claim" category,as opposed to "fact" category. Using this information we can eliminate A, B, C and D as these choices lists one of them as evidence/fact.

Crick
Manager
Status: Still Struggling
Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 127
Location: India
GMAT Date: 10-15-2011
GPA: 3.71
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2011, 04:42
I am not sure why the OA is E.
the first statement reveals that the fine has been helpful in reducing the litter.
the 2nd statement reveals that the fine would be discarded completely.

The only option C justifies this. the first statement is assumed to be true(because of the hepfulness of the fine) and the seconf one is consequence of the fees that is predicted.

Can you guys please explain me why the ans is E?

hogann 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.

_________________

Knewton Free Test 10/03 - 710 (49/37)
Princeton Free Test 10/08 - 610 (44/31)
Kaplan Test 1- 10/10 - 630
Veritas Prep- 10/11 - 630 (42/37)
MGMAT 1 - 10/12 - 680 (45/34)

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 79
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2011, 11:06
hogann 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.

Chose D but now understand why E is correct.
Senior Manager
Status: MBAing!!!!
Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 259
Location: United States (FL)
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.65
WE: Project Management (Real Estate)
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2011, 14:36
I picked B.
1-this boldface statement is part of a possible cause and effect relationship
2-this boldface statement contradicts the 1st statement

I understand why the OA is E.
Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 152
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.2
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2011, 07:17
Very good question. I was just watching B and E to select the right one. Finally guessed E.
_________________

Two great challenges: 1. Guts to Fail and 2. Fear to Succeed

Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 152
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.2
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2011, 05:27
E it is
_________________

Two great challenges: 1. Guts to Fail and 2. Fear to Succeed

Manager
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 92
Location: United States
GMAT Date: 10-22-2012
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2012, 00:15
2
2
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?
• 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 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.
Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 37
Re: Local authorities are considering ...  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2012, 06:39
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?
• 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 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.

A)Incorrect The first is a statement of fact but it doesnt support the second sentence as the second assumes that the first will cease to hold.
B)Incorrect: The author doesn't predict that continual increases in fine will continue to reduce litter - quite the opposite.
C)Incorrect: THe first is a fact but the second isn't a consequence of the fact. If the face is that fines up leads to litter down, the the consequence is fines further up, litter further down.
D)Incorrect: (tough to remove) It sounds completely right until I saw the word position, the author hasn't actually got a position (a conclusion) he just says that park users may begin to see the fine as unenforceable.
E) Correct. The first sentence is correct as the author clearly talks about the break down of the fine/litter relationship and the second is definitely a reason why the relationship will break down
_________________

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 510
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Local authorities are considering ...  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2012, 03:14
+1E

BF1 - incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area
BF2 - Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether

BF1 – It is a statement of causation. It will not hold the case. It is not a statement of fact. It does not weakens the main position that the author defends. Eliminate B,C,D

Between A and E

BF1 does not support BF2, eliminate A

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 172
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2012, 03:31
Choice E is the right choice.

Took sometime to figure out the solution. Thanks for the question
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Posts: 17
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2012, 10:13
Mr. getgyan, can u please explain what does the phrase 'statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand' mean?
''statement of causation ' - means?
hope case in hand - littering law?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 308
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2012, 03:54
Hi,

Let me see if I can help.

I interpret 'statement of causation' to mean the littering law.

So in this example, we see that the suggested result of the littering law is in the bold section.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 442
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2013, 07:16
2

(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.

_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

Intern
Status: All in for MBA
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 39
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.39
WE: Operations (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 10:15
mbaiseasy wrote:

(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.

Excellent Bifurcation of the answer choices.
Kudos

Cheers,
Ankit
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter &nbs [#permalink] 26 Feb 2013, 10:15

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.