Low-income families are often unable to afford as much child care as

Question

Low-income families are often unable to afford as much child care as they need. One government program would award low-income families a refund on the income taxes they pay of as much as $1,000 for each child under age four. This program would make it possible for all low-income families with children under age four to obtain more child care than they otherwise would have been able to afford.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the claim that the program would make it possible for all low-income families to obtain more child care?

(A) The average family with children under age four spends more than $1,000 a year on child care.

(B) Some low-income families in which one of the parents is usually available to care for children under age four may not want to spend their income tax refund on child care.

(C) The reduction in government revenues stemming from the income tax refund will necessitate cuts in other government programs, such as grants for higher education.

(D) Many low-income families with children under age four do not pay any income taxes because their total income is too low to be subject to such taxes.

(E) Income taxes have increased substantially over the past twenty years, reducing the money that low-income families have available to spend on child care.

anishasjkaul · Accepted Answer

HERE IS MY EXPLAINATION: (A)The average family with children under age four spends more than $1,000 a year on child care. This does not give us any reason to call into question the plan. Moreover the conlusion says: "otherwise would have been able to afford", and the people in this option can are mostly likely to afford a decent amount of child care, so these ppl dont even fall in the category being considred. (B)Some low-income families in which one of the parents is usually available to care for children under age four may not want to spend their income tax refund on child care. This option does not call into question the success of the plan. the questions asks us, "if the families are eligible, do you think this plan will work?". Moreover the question asks us about "obtain more child care", as long as an option doubts the possibilty of the family OBTAINING the child care, its good, what the family does after obtaining is secondary and irrelevant. (C)The reduction in govt revenues stemming from the income tax refund will necessisate cuts in other govt programs, such as grants for higher education. Higher education, cuts in other plans, NOT RELEVANT. (D)Many low-income families with children under age four do not pay any income taxes because their total income is too low to be subject to such taxes. YEAH, CORRECT. if the families are not eligible for the subsidy, then the plan wont obviously work, the families are never going to get that money, because they dont qualify. (E)Income taxes have increased substantially over the past 20 years, reducing the money that low-income families have available to spend on child care. Gives us no new information. Moreover, tells us nothing about the plan or anything factor related to it. NOT HELPING. KUDOS PLEASE

TGC · Answer

A tax refund of $1000 is granted per child(Age <4 years) to low income families such that they can have more $$ for child care than they would have had without program.

(D) states that families doesn't even have income such that the tax computed equals =$1000, so (D) weakens the claim that the program would be beneficial for LOw income families

Rgds,
TGC !

AmithKumarSingh · Answer

The argument states that 'govt program would award low-income families a refund on the income taxes they pay of as much as $1000 for each child under age four.'

But what if the families are not in a condition to pay the tax itself. That implies, NO Tax= No refund ($1000) = No benefit from the program.

I will go with 'D'

mba757 · Answer

Conclusion : “This program would make it possible for ALL low-income families with children under age four to OBTAIN MORE child care than they otherwise would have been able to afford.”  
 Prethink : what if they don’t pay income taxes right now? Then they wouldn’t receive any refund? 
 Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the claim that the program would make it possible for all low-income families to obtain more child care?
 
 (A) The average family with children under age four spends more than $1,000 a year on child care.
 Out of scope – What they spend doesn’t impact the amount they receive. Unless, there was some spending threshold or something? But this would have to be articulated within this answer choice to clarify the impact to the conclusion.

(B) Some low-income families in which one of the parents is usually available to care for children under age four may not want to spend their income tax refund on child care.
 Out of scope – What they want to spend it on is irrelevant. We just know program -> refund $ -> obtain more child care because more money; if they want to spend it on child care or not is irrelevant.

(C) The reduction in government revenues stemming from the income tax refund will necessitate cuts in other government programs, such as grants for higher education.
 Out of scope – where they cut funding is after the fact. This doesn’t impact the immediate conclusion at hand.

(D) Many low-income families with children under age four do not pay any income taxes because their total income is too low to be subject to such taxes.
 This is it. This would remove them from even starting the program, so they wouldn’t receive the refund. THUS, these families would more than likely NOT obtain “more child care.”

(E) Income taxes have increased substantially over the past twenty years, reducing the money that low-income families have available to spend on child care.
 This essentially supports the argument. And why the program would help. This wouldn’t call into question the claim that the program would make it possible to obtain more CC.

Mraax · Answer

Because Income low, no Tax. Hence No refund and argument falls flat
(D) Many low-income families with children under age four do not pay any income taxes because their total income is too low to be subject to such taxes.

AeshaT · Answer

I got through understanding why option D is correct. However out of curiosity I wanted to understand that if the question stem states ???would make it possible for all low-income families to obtain child care???, where I can emphasise on the word ???all???, my mind automatically wanted to look for option that can correspond to ???all??? and not have ???many???, ???most???, ???some???, ???almost???. How do we get comfortable with ???many??? and decide that even if it does not refer to ???all??? in the answer option, we are good to go. Please help

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

Consider what the question asks you to do. It asks you to choose answer that CALLS INTO QUESTION THE CLAIM THAT ALL LOW-INCOME FAMILIES COULD OBTAIN MORE CHILDCARE.

What would that mean? How would we call that claim into question? We would just need to show that SOME of those families won't obtain more childcare. We don't need NONE of those families to obtain more childcare to weaken the idea that ALL of them would.

The opposite of 'all' is 'some.' The opposite of 'many' is 'few.' The opposite of 'some' is 'none.'

shailendra010786 · Answer

Any experts plz help ......How we can eliminate option A , can we say that average families include both groups low income and high income families and argument is about low income families . So can we eliminate this option on the basis of that is not affecting the relevant group(low income families). Is my reasoning correct???

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Low-income families are often unable to afford as much child care as

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Low-income families are often unable to afford as much child care as

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards