Join us for MBA Spotlight – The Top 20 MBA Fair      Schedule of Events | Register

 It is currently 06 Jun 2020, 06:11

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 330
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

Updated on: 03 Jul 2018, 21:35
2
23
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:52) correct 32% (02:08) wrong based on 1202 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.

Originally posted by snipertrader on 05 Aug 2009, 18:49.
Last edited by Bunuel on 03 Jul 2018, 21:35, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3445
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2018, 09:53
7
2
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.

The conclusion of the Mayor's argument is that school officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services. Let's break down how the Mayor reaches this conclusion:

• Five years ago, the city cut school funding.
• School officials complained that this cut would force them to reduce expenditures for essential services. But when the cut was made, only expenditures for nonessential services were reduced.
• This process (city cut funding, school officials complained, school officials reduced expenditures only for nonessential services) repeated for four more years.
• Therefore, today, school officials can cut further without reducing any expenditures for essential services.

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

This logic literally isn't adding up. Just because something happened previously doesn't mean that it will happen again in the future! What we really care about is what's going to happen next, and we need the following information to accept the mayor's conclusion:

• How much money the schools have now for essential services and nonessential services.
• How much it will cost to provide essential services and nonessential services when the next cut takes place.

So let's look for the answer choice that most fills in these blanks, making us more likely to believe that the next cut can be implemented without any reduction in essential expenditures.

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

The schools' efficiency in providing essential services has nothing to do with whether they have enough money in the bank to avoid cutting expenditures on those services. Choice (A) doesn't provide any information that would fill our logical gap, so let's eliminate it.

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

This helps out quite a bit! If we know that the schools have money in the bank to provide nonessential services, the we know that some (potentially all) of the next cut can be taken out of these particular funds, instead of being taken out of the funds for essential services.

It would be great to know how big the cut will be, but the conclusion is that school officials can implement further cuts, not some specific size of cut. If there are \$X in the bank for nonessential services, at least \$X can be further cut from overall funding without any reduction in spending on essential services.

Choice (B) doesn't prove the conclusion, but it definitely makes the conclusion easier to believe. Let's keep it around and see if any of the remaining choices are better.

Quote:
(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.

Hm, so choice (C) tells us that the cost of nonessential services isn't much more than it was last year. But how much was it last year? How much is it today? And how does this cost relate to how much funding schools will have after the cut? We still don't have the information we need to assess how the next cut will impact the amount needed for essential services.

As a result, choice (C) doesn't support the mayor's conclusion nearly as much as choice (B), so let's eliminate it and keep going.

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

The stance of city administrators on these services has nothing to do with how much money the schools have and how much schools need in order to avoid reducing expenditures on those services. Eliminate (D).

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

The conclusion itself doesn't question the accuracy or honesty of the school officials. The conclusion states that after the next cut, there will be no cuts to expenditures on essential services. Choice (E), like choice (D) and choice (A), doesn't do anything to fill in the gaps that we need to support this conclusion, so we'll eliminate it.

(B) remains the best choice, because it does more than any other choice to make the mayor's conclusion believable.

But between you and me, even if (B) were true, I would never vote for a mayor who is this bad at critical reasoning. Please take these lessons to heart, find success with your MBA, and become a better mayor for your town.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
##### General Discussion
Manager
Status: Applying
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 92
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

05 Aug 2009, 21:55
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
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 8
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2010, 14:07
3
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
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 133
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2010, 16:26

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.

Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 225
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2010, 14:25
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 .

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..
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 262
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

22 Jan 2010, 18:38
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.
Intern
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 40
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2010, 01:08
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
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 107
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2010, 01:30
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
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 31
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 11:18
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
__________________________________________________________________________
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1419
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2017, 02:47
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 268
Location: United States (NC)
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2018, 01:14
2
1
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
_________________
Probus

~You Just Can't beat the person who never gives up~ Babe Ruth
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2019, 21:34
Probus wrote:
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

Hi Probus ,

Not sure whether it would help you or not, but option C is not an assumption.
Two reasons for that:
i) had it been an assumption, it would have been a NECESSARY premise thus in a way strengthener to the argument and we can't have two strengtheners in same question.

ii) Actually this option says that the funds QUOTED for the NE ( Non essential) services are relatively same. This means that they are same from last year. We do not know what the prices were last year. So nothing much can be said.

Rather I would go on saying that option C could QUALIFY as possible weakener. It's because we know from the statements that ALREADY many non-essential services are cut off and if the funds remain same and there is no INCREASE in their funds and the staff is inclined to cut off SOME services, it's likely they cut off ESSENTIAL services.

How I say this?
Negating option C says that NE services quotation has increased substantially. This simply means that they could cut off NE services. So in a way NEGATION STRENGTHENS the argument.
So option C as is would QUALIFY as a possible weakener, albeit feeble weakener.

Regards,
Rishav
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10506
Location: Pune, India
Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2020, 23:18
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.

Every time there was a funding cut, only nonessential services expenditures were reduced.

Conclusion: School officials can implement further cuts without reducing any expenditures for essential services.

This would work if there are non essential expenditures to cut. If all expenditure right now is only essential expenditure, further expenditure cut will reduce essential expenditure only.

So what will support the conclusion?

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

Irrelevant what they have done till now.

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

There are some funds getting diverted to nonessential services right now. So if funding gets cut, essential services could still be maintained. This does strengthen our conclusion. How much would be the cut and whether it will dip into only non-essential services is besides the point. We don't have to prove the conclusion. We have to only strengthen it.

(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.

Irrelevant.

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

"Few" means "almost none". So city admins do not support funding nonessential services. That could be the reason why they cut funds. But we need to focus on whether cutting funds will still allow expenditure for essentials.

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

This is against our premises.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Re: Mayor: In each of the past five years, the city has cut school funding   [#permalink] 27 Apr 2020, 23:18