It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 17:31

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# 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: 218

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 06:51
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:22) correct 37% (01:13) wrong based on 526 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 06:51
OA to come this afternoon

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 256

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 4

Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 08:06
IMO E

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 325

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 5

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.

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 5

Senior Manager
Affiliations: PMP
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 296

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 37

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

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 37

Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 872

Kudos [?]: 861 [0], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 09:56
IMO E

Kudos [?]: 861 [0], given: 18

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 322

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2009, 11:05
IMO E

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 13 May 2009
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

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.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

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.

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 672

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 37

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

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 37

Manager
Status: Still Struggling
Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 8

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)

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 8

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 15

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.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 15

Senior Manager
Status: MBAing!!!!
Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 56

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.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 56

Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 172

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 6

Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2011, 02:13
IMO E

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 6

Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 180

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 21

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

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 21

Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2011
Posts: 182

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 21

Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2011, 11:56
yup +1 for E

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 21

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2011, 11:09
E

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 180

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 21

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

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 21

Manager
Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 82 [2], given: 47

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
KUDOS
2
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?
• 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.

Kudos [?]: 82 [2], given: 47

Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 28

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
_________________

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 28

Re: Local authorities are considering ...   [#permalink] 10 Oct 2012, 06:39

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 41 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by