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.

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!

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

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 !!!

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

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