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

It is currently 15 Dec 2018, 15:00

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 in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • $450 Tuition Credit & Official CAT Packs FREE

     December 15, 2018

     December 15, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Get the complete Official GMAT Exam Pack collection worth $100 with the 3 Month Pack ($299)
  • FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

     December 16, 2018

     December 16, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.

Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 178
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 02 Oct 2018, 07:10
1
16
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:22) correct 37% (01:12) wrong based on 731 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.

Originally posted by hogann on 13 Oct 2009, 05:51.
Last edited by Bunuel on 02 Oct 2018, 07:10, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 178
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2009, 11:12
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 36
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2012, 05:39
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
_________________

If you find my post helpful, please GIVE ME SOME KUDOS!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 429
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2013, 06:16
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.

Answer: E
_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7107
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2015, 22:22
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
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Current Student
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4394
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2015, 18:55

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



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
How I got into five schools from zero - Applicant Lab Review
Veritas Prep Live Online

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Posts: 71
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2016, 08:55
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 !!!

Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3620
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2016, 10:03
1
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 | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog
GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 640
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 law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2017, 02:19
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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 256
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2017, 20:48
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 :)
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3525
Premium Member
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2018, 07:02
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.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that &nbs [#permalink] 02 Oct 2018, 07:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that

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


Copyright

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®.