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

It is currently 21 Oct 2018, 05:28

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

Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 388
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 03 Jul 2018, 22:35
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:09) correct 31% (01:23) wrong based on 242 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding and each time school officials complained that the cuts would force them to reduce expenditures for essential services. But each time, only expenditures for nonessential services were actually reduced. So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the mayor’s conclusion?


(A) The city’s schools have always provided essential services as efficiently as they have provided nonessential services.

(B) Sufficient funds are currently available to allow the city’s schools to provide some nonessential services.

(C) Price estimates quoted to the city’s schools for the provision of nonessential services have not increased substantially since the most recent school funding cut.

(D) Few influential city administrators support the funding of costly nonessential services in the city’s schools.

(E) The city’s school officials rarely exaggerate the potential impact of threatened funding cuts.

_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.


Originally posted by snipertrader on 05 Aug 2009, 19:49.
Last edited by Bunuel on 03 Jul 2018, 22:35, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Applying
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 120
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2009, 22:55
1
1
1
IMO ...B

If the non essential services have substancial funds then certainly the schools can dip into the non-essential funds instead of reducing any of the essential services.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 17
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2010, 15:07
2
2
Og11 Cr-9
Mayor : In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding and each time school officials complained that the cuts would force them to reduce expenditures for essential services. But each time, only expenditures for nonessential services were actually reduced. So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.

Which of the following , if true, most strongly supports the mayor's conclusion?

(A)The city's schools have always provided essential services as efficiently as they have provided non essential services.
(B) Sufficient funds are currently available to allow the city's schools to provide some nonessential services.
(C) Price estimates quoted to the city's schools for the provision of non essential services have not increased substantially since the most recent school-funding cut.
(D) Few influential city administrators support the funding of costly nonessential services in the city's schools.
(E) The city's school officials rarely exaggerate the potential impact of the threatened funding cuts.

I post this question for asking another thing

Do you guys think that the answer choice C can be an assumption for this argument?

I am confused b/w assumption and strength :( .
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 184
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2010, 17:26
Answer is B.

Mayor's conclusion is - So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services. Thus cuts can be made from non-essential expenditures. Thus it implies that still there are sufficient funds available for non-essentials services.

Thus Mayor's conclusion is solely based on the fact that there are still sufficient funds for non-essential services which can be cut without affecting essentials services.

OA please. Thanks.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 309
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2010, 15:25
lys8207 wrote:
Og11 Cr-9
Mayor : In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding and each time school officials complained that the cuts would force them to reduce expenditures for essential services. But each time, only expenditures for nonessential services were actually reduced. So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.

Which of the following , if true, most strongly supports the mayor's conclusion?

(A)The city's schools have always provided essential services as efficiently as they have provided non essential services.
(B) Sufficient funds are currently available to allow the city's schools to provide some nonessential services.
(C) Price estimates quoted to the city's schools for the provision of non essential services have not increased substantially since the most recent school-funding cut.
(D) Few influential city administrators support the funding of costly nonessential services in the city's schools.
(E) The city's school officials rarely exaggerate the potential impact of the threatened funding cuts.

I post this question for asking another thing

Do you guys think that the answer choice C can be an assumption for this argument?

I am confused b/w assumption and strength :( .


Answer is B....

For strengthing question.... just concentrate on the Conclusion.... "So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services." and see which statement can make this conclusion more strong! Even u wld choose B..
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!! :beer

|Do not post questions with OA|Please underline your SC questions while posting|Try posting the explanation along with your answer choice|
|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|


~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 335
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2010, 19:38
2
lys8207 wrote:
I am confused b/w assumption and strength :( .


PowerScore states that Assumption is an unstated premise. Typically in question stimulus that require you to identify an assumption, premise will discuss about something, but the conclusion will take you to an entirely different arena. There is something stated and there is something totally new that is concluded. An assumption will help you bridge that gap.

Strengthen or weaken questions on the other hand will attack the conclusion. Typically they are unstated premises as well, but most often they are additional by nature. Identifying an answer option that goes hand-in-hand with the given premises in the stimulus is very easy to identify, so the test-makers will often try to bring in new or extra information that will have a direct impact on the conclusion, that is what makes the correct answers as additional premises. However, it does not mean that assumptions cannot strengthen.

The answer options will be formulated based on the question stem posed, so you need not worry about what is not asked. There is also not sufficient time to ponder over such aspects of the question. Just stay focussed on what is asked and try and eliminate what seems wrong.
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 56
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Apr 2010, 02:08
1
ans B.

the conclusion "So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services." can be strengthened,if there are extra funds left for NON-essential services.in that case,further cut to school fundings can be implemented,and "only expenditures for NON-essential services will be reduced" as it has been done for the pst 5 yrs by school officials.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 187
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Apr 2010, 02:30
B it is.

Though I I did not do it, but you can try this personalize method. Assume yourself as a mayor and if given the evidence that there are sufficient funds for non-essential services, wouldn't you make the same argument?
Just an idea, if it helps.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 40
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2012, 12:18
I agree with the correct answer choice to be B.
My question is more about handling the other choice, E. It says that school officials don't exaggerate the potential impact of cuts. This is contrary to the passage that says that the officials complained of cuts in essential services. Such cuts were never required. Only cuts in non-essential services were taken up. This clearly shows that the officials were not sure of their claims and were making false claims of their abilities. The OG mentions that this point weakens the argument. Does it weaken the argument by pointing a flaw or questioning the premise of the argument? Kindly explain how does it weaken.
I know that we could easily take this option out but was curious to know the reasoning nonetheless.
Thanks.
_________________

__________________________________________________________________________
Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful
__________________________________________________________________________

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1710
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2017, 03:47
I am worrying about the mix questions. Until now, for a mixing question, I will subjectively choose one type of the question, and deal with that type. Normally, the type will be chosen based on what is stated in the question.

I stop worrying about mixing questions now because mix questions are rare.
Even if knowing that a question is a mixing one will help me to find the right answer in an easier way, I will not go for a complex method.

The advice is just to choose the option that best fits the question and the passage.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 152
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2018, 02:14
lys8207 wrote:
Og11 Cr-9
Mayor : In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding and each time school officials complained that the cuts would force them to reduce expenditures for essential services. But each time, only expenditures for nonessential services were actually reduced. So school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.

Which of the following , if true, most strongly supports the mayor's conclusion?

(A)The city's schools have always provided essential services as efficiently as they have provided non essential services.
(B) Sufficient funds are currently available to allow the city's schools to provide some nonessential services.
(C) Price estimates quoted to the city's schools for the provision of non essential services have not increased substantially since the most recent school-funding cut.
(D) Few influential city administrators support the funding of costly nonessential services in the city's schools.
(E) The city's school officials rarely exaggerate the potential impact of the threatened funding cuts.

I post this question for asking another thing

Do you guys think that the answer choice C can be an assumption for this argument?

I am confused b/w assumption and strength :( .


Hiegmat,

Well i did attend a session of yours on pre-thinking,and really liked it.

Using the learning of the sessions , i decided to come up for an assumption for every question type ( esp Strengthener and Weakener) and its really working though i am not 100% correct always. But most of the answers that i mark correct are because i was able to come up with an assumption in each question. PLus it gives me a good practice if that question asked for assumption.

When i tried to attempt this question i was taken back and wanted to correct at this stage of learning my process of making assumption in an argument.

So let me try to explain how i attempted this question, which might help you understand the gap in my approach.

Argument Evaluation:
City has cut funding for a certain school ( every year in the past 5 years)
Every time school management raised a alarm stating that this cut in funding would force them to reduce expenses for essential services.

However its was observed that each time funding was cut , they did not reduce the expenses for essential services but rather reduced expenses for non -essential services .

On this basis author is concluding that hey school management can take another cut in funding without reducing the expenses for essential services.

So main conclusion is School officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.

falsification Conditions:
Under which circumstances the management cannot implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services."
Given that
In past every time cut was enforced they cut down their expenses for non essential services

What if they don't have any further scope of reducing the expenses for non essential services if they have to provide these services effectively.

So assumption is : Hey Schools still have some scope of cutting revenues for non-essential services to provide them effectively.


Also,

Lets say each time in last 5 years there was cut in funding , school required the services providers of non essential services to lower the prices. And this helped them to implement the cut each time without effecting the essential services.

Now this time since service providers have already been lowering the prices for last 5 years, they will not be further able to lower the prices for services of essential services.
This breaks the conclusion.
So assumption is ' the cost of providing non-essential services can be lowered to provide for these services effectively"

So my question is
Can we call Option C a assumption. ( i am not sure) but i think no.

Price estimates quoted to the city's schools for the provision of non essential services have not increased substantially since the most recent school-funding cut.

even if the cost of providing services haven't increased , we don't know if the school has the budget even to pay for the prices that were in effect since last cut.

I am not convinced by reasoning.
Can you help me resolve my ambiguity.

Probus
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding &nbs [#permalink] 17 Oct 2018, 02:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding

  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®.