Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0907:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway- Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0812:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Sep 1001:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
03 Jul 2026, 02:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
59% (01:47) correct
41%
(01:53)
wrong
based on 220
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Official: Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened. Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent. Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
03 Jul 2026, 09:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official: Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened. Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent. Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
The official assumes that the higher fines caused the drop in parking violations. But the fine increase happened at the same time a new parking garage opened. The drop may have occurred because drivers had more legal parking available, not because the fines were higher.
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
This is not the flaw. The argument does not confuse cause and effect in that way.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
This is too specific. The official does not need to assume another 50 percent drop. The bigger problem is that the first drop may not have been caused by the fines at all.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
This is irrelevant. The conclusion is about reducing violations, not maximizing fine revenue.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
This is not the main flaw. The issue is not drivers’ preferences, but whether the cause of the decrease was the fine increase or the new parking garage.
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
This is correct. The new parking garage may have provided more legal parking, causing fewer street violations. If so, raising fines again may not reduce violations further. That alternative explanation weakens the official’s causal claim.
Answer: (E)
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
The official assumes that the higher fines caused the drop in parking violations. But the fine increase happened at the same time a new parking garage opened. The drop may have occurred because drivers had more legal parking available, not because the fines were higher.
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
This is not the flaw. The argument does not confuse cause and effect in that way.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
This is too specific. The official does not need to assume another 50 percent drop. The bigger problem is that the first drop may not have been caused by the fines at all.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
This is irrelevant. The conclusion is about reducing violations, not maximizing fine revenue.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
This is not the main flaw. The issue is not drivers’ preferences, but whether the cause of the decrease was the fine increase or the new parking garage.
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
This is correct. The new parking garage may have provided more legal parking, causing fewer street violations. If so, raising fines again may not reduce violations further. That alternative explanation weakens the official’s causal claim.
Answer: (E)
09 Jul 2026, 03:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise 1
Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened.
Premise 2: Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent.
Conclusion: Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again
Two things happened at the same time:
· fines increased
· a new parking garage opened
The official assumes the reduction was caused by higher fines, but maybe it was caused by something else.
This is a classic alternative cause flaw.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
Wrong: Reverse causation doesn’t happen.
It’s like saying:
Sales increased because advertising increased.
Advertising increased because sales increased.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
Wrong: it states “Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again”. the text doesn’t say “will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time”; it just says “if we want there to be even fewer parking violations”.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
Wrong: Money has nothing to do with the reasoning. The conclusion is about reducing violations.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
Wrong: The argument is only about what caused the reduction, not about people’s preferences
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
Correct: Assumption was that the decrease was caused by higher finesand then ignores another plausible cause: the new parking garage.
Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened.
Premise 2: Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent.
Conclusion: Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again
Two things happened at the same time:
· fines increased
· a new parking garage opened
The official assumes the reduction was caused by higher fines, but maybe it was caused by something else.
This is a classic alternative cause flaw.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
Wrong: Reverse causation doesn’t happen.
It’s like saying:
Sales increased because advertising increased.
Advertising increased because sales increased.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
Wrong: it states “Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again”. the text doesn’t say “will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time”; it just says “if we want there to be even fewer parking violations”.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
Wrong: Money has nothing to do with the reasoning. The conclusion is about reducing violations.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
Wrong: The argument is only about what caused the reduction, not about people’s preferences
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
Correct: Assumption was that the decrease was caused by higher finesand then ignores another plausible cause: the new parking garage.
