Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property

You're right that, if anything, (B) provides some support to the argument that the city shouldn't raise property taxes. However, that support is pretty weak -- we have no idea how large the grants are in comparison to the costs of maintaining infrastructure, and we have no idea which "parts" of infrastructure are supported by the grants and which are not. For example, maybe the national government assists with maintaining roads, but doesn't help at all with maintaining safe drinking water. If this was the case, then Stonebridge may need to raise property taxes, even if it receives some assistance from the federal government.

So, while (B) might provide a bit of support for the argument it isn't really an awesome strengthener. Regardless, though, it certainly doesn't weaken the urban planner's argument, so you can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi avigutman - what exactly is the argument , we are trying to weaken ? I am looking at this for 30 mins and still can't figure it out, what is the arguement even saying ?

Is it :

a) Taxes should not be raised because doing so, more residents will drive away, compounding the problem

OR is the entire argument in the last sentence in green specifically ?

b) Since people are leaving, you should NOT raise taxes. [I am not sure what kind of argument is this ?]

Hi - Do you see this as a "Plan" type CR question or a cause -effect ? I keep reading many posts about cause -effect but i saw this as a plan question.

Argument : People are leaving.
Action Plan : Do not raise property taxes.
Reasoning : if you raise property taxes, EVEN MORE people will leave.

In order to weaken this "Plan", I was hoping to find perhaps

i) If you do not raise property taxes, OTHER BAD things not related to infrastructure can happen (maybe schools will be underfundeded or benefits maybe cut)

ii)

I’m not sure the distinction between a plan and a cause->effect argument is helpful.

The argument is structured as follows:
When x happens, y tends to follow, because of z.
y causes x, compounding the problem.
Therefore since x is happening in Stonebridge, we should avoid y.

So, the author is arguing that we shouldn’t raise property taxes because doing so would compound the problem.

The correct answer choice implies that the problem will still be compounded even if we don’t raise property taxes.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi, option A is the most direct but it has some issues . isn't the purpose of property taxes is maintenance . and so not collecting it will result in poor appearance for any city. so stonebridge is not a special case

Thanks ScottTargetTestPrep..

Beautifully explained how option A is correct answer choice.
However, not much convinced with explanation for why/ option C is eliminated.


_________________

There you are GMATNinja...!!

Thank you sire...!!
I was desperately looking for some convincing reason/reasoning to eliminate option C.
Thanks a ton.


_________________

My reasoning was that, is attractiveness of infrastructure the only criteria for people to choose to migrate or not, it is very well possible that city will become less attractive and not attract more tourism, but still their citizens may choose not to migrate, since other attractive major cities would not be affordable for them, perhaps citizens would rather prefer living in their current poor city, rather than going to an attractive city (which probably even have higher property tax rates), which may not be their first consideration. Thus I didn't choose A

On the other hand, If one chooses demographics as an option, it indicates that if true, would certainly result in 'substantial' increase in population 'within next' (Not 'after') several years. Now if this prediction is true , government should not worry much to raise property tax rate and should rather focus on improving infrastructure so that future demographics can live a better life , so even if tax rates are increased by govt, say 1000 people would emmigrate, but probably 100000 more people with immigrate within next several years, thus benefiting the overall population as a whole.

it is true that either of the options doesn't destroy the conclusion, but certainly it cast a doubt and weaken the argument. How should we rate which is the strong and weak weakener

Can you please clarify what is wrong in my reasoning.

GMATNinja KarishmaB

Why D is incorrect?
(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.

As per my understanding, the cycle (Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem) started because the city is losing population. If the projection states that the population will start to increase in future, the cycle would stop. So govt can raise tax, bcz the increased population would support the burden of tax increase.

Argument: Don't raise taxes because it will lead to lower population leading to further deterioration of the city conditions.

To weaken it, we need to give a reason why NOT raising taxes may NOT be a good idea if our aim is to stabilise or improve the city's condition i.e. give a reason why the city may need to raise taxes to stabilise or improve condition. That is done by option (A)

Look at (D)

(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.

This option doesn't tell us whether the population of Stonebridge will increase. Population of a region that includes Stonebridge will rise but the rise may not be distributed equally in the region. For all we know the population of the region may increase but that of Stonebridge may not.
Second, even if we assume that population of Stonebridge will rise substantially within the next few years, it could be considered a reason to not raise taxes or to raise taxes depending on how we see it.

Support for don't raise taxes
Our problem is loss of population. So one may want to raise taxes. But raising taxes leads to more people leaving. If we already know that population is going to increase in the next few years, let's not raise taxes. With the increase in population, the property tax is likely to rise on its own and hence the current problems will take care of themselves. It gives a reason why raising taxes is not required. It agrees with the conclusion of the author.

Support for raising taxes
Since the population is going to increase, no problems in raising taxes.

Basically, the option says that raising taxes will not be related to population. Population will anyway increase. Hence, does it give us a reason why raising taxes may be needed to improve condition? No.

Hence (D) is not correct.
_________________

Solution

Hi ReedArnoldMPREP GraceSCKao GMATCoachBen AjiteshArun
ChiranjeevSingh AnishPassi
– I personally thought (D) did a better job weakening the argument compared to (A)

Below pic is the argument. The argument describes a chain reaction



In order to weaken the above chain reaction – you could

a) Breaking the link in the red box
Or
b) Breaking the link in the purple circle

(option A) doesn’t do either of this. (Option A) doesn’t break any link (neither in the red box nor in the purple circle) whatsoever

(A) almost introduces a ** NEW CHAIN REACTION**

(A) says, if Govt keeps taxes the same : something ‘bad’ is also going to happen

That’s not weakening the original chain reaction above however.

Also, maybe the scenario in (option A) is perhaps better than scenario seen in my chain reaction above

we cant say

ChiranjeevSingh
AnishPassi

^^ Option D DOES break the chain by introducing a new variable (FUTURE population rise)

Thereby, the chain in the purple circle is BROKEN

If you increase taxes --> population will reduce temporarily. However, that population reduction will be re-compensated by population rises in the future.

---------

On a side note -

I understand that there are two possibilities within option (D)
(#1) The population increase happens around Stonebridge
(#2) The population increase will happen in Stonebridge.

** Note – the presence of two scenarios (#1 and #2 - above) in (D) is not enough to cancel out (D). Remember we are not looking for an answer choice that 100 % is a weakener. Just having the possibility to weaken (i.e. 1 out of 2 plausible scenarios) is good enough for GMAT questions

You're ignoring the last link in the chain: ---->The government SHOULD NOT RAISE PROPERTY TAXES.

Weakening the argument does not JUST mean the chain reaction the author lays out has broken. Weakening the argument could also mean 'this chain reaction you mention does not necessarily mean the government should NOT raise property taxes. Maybe they should, DESPITE the chain reaction?"

This is more in line with what GMAT Critical Reasoning usually deals with. The chain reaction here is the PREMISE. The "Should not raise property taxes" is the conclusion. The biggest CR question to ask is "Why might the conclusion be false EVEN IF the premises are true?"

We know people will leave if property taxes are increased, but if people will ALSO leave if infrastructure crumbles... Welp, we then have to choose from our best bad options. We'll grant the argument that we'll lose people by raising property taxes, but maybe we'll lose more people if we *don't*, and if that second world is true, then we SHOULD increase property taxes. A introduces the possibility that the second 'world' might be the case.

(D), if anything, *strengthens* the argument that they should not raise property taxes. "Okay, we've lost some people in the short term, but in a few years we'll get a nice influx. No reason to drive anyone off by raising our property taxes now."

You're using D in the following way:

"Demographers project that there will be lots of people moving, so we can raise property taxes but NOT lose our population, because people are moving here."

But this presumes that altering the property tax *doesn't change the demographers projection*. The demographers CURRENTLY project an influx, but if increasing property taxes drives away current residences, it might dissuade future residents from moving there.

And more broadly--D is trying to get you to throw out the premise. I can't say this is NEVER the right answer in a 'weaken' question, but it's usually not.

A is the better answer, here.
_________________

Thank you so much Reed. Just some thoughts.



The red interested me. I thought the best way to weaken the conclusion was the 'break' the chain reaction. I thought the yellow was "sidestepping" almost by telling us "well the grass is NOT GREENER on the other side"

While I agree the chain reaction is a premise – an introduction of a “NEW FACTOR” which the author did not think about (When making the chain reaction) is a legitimate weakening strategy.

In this CR problem - premises were MOOT because of the introduction of new evidence / new research (atleast thats what the Manhattan expert mentioned)

I thought (D) kind of did the same thing by bringing in "new variables/ new factors" into the chain reaction.



I agree on the blue

(A) introduces us to the possibility of two ‘worlds’
World 1: raise taxes and population reduces
World 2: keep taxes the same and infrastructure crumbles (presumable people will ALSO LEAVE)

Would you agree, we dont know if World 2 is BETTER than World 1 ?



Not sure I agree on the purple. I don’t see how (d) **strengthens** the conclusion.

Its only possible if we think of this scenario playing out
- Okay, we have ALREADY lost people
- Let’s not make the problem worse (by increasing taxes)
- We know, we have ALREADY lost people but this past problem will **self correct ** with the influx of people
- Hence, lets not increase taxes at the moment

Is the above, the scenario you were thinking about when you mention (D) could “Strengthen” the conclusion ?



Not sure I agree on this.
(D) doesn’t tell us throw out the premise
(D) works well with the chain reaction.

It would weaken the conclusion, but it's a much less common GMAT game than the one I refer to.



That's not sidestepping. This is what CR is usually about. "Maybe the conclusion is NOT true" is, like, the big thing to ask on CR. And usually, you should ask, "Maybe the conclusion is NOT true, EVEN THOUGH the premises are true."



Yeah, this is a good example that what I'm saying does not ALWAYS happen. It's hard to deny that the right answer to that question introduces a new piece of information that raises doubt to the premise. I could play really annoying games and wonder if 'preventing migration... between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago' really means *every year* in that range, but I think that's a little too pedantic. I think the reasonable read of that premise is that "there was no human migration [in this way] for the 7000 year range in question," and then the right answer comes in and says "ACTUALLY there was one way that opened up towards the very end of that range."

So, yes, sometimes the right answer questions premises. But it's rare enough that when it happens I get annoyed at the GMAT, since the rule is so often "Don't doubt the premise."

But I don't think D even actually weakens the premise. I think it's written to make you *think* it does, but it fails, because of the following points.



You didn't mention this part of my reply:



This is the death knell of D as a weakener. If D said "There will be an influx of population in a few years even if we raise property taxes," it would weaken the argument. That's not what it says. It says demographers project an influx in population. But that's a projection based on *current* information. If we change things by raising property taxes... We already know for sure that increasing property taxes will drive off current residents. I don't see why these potential newcomers won't be affected in the same way, and will decide not to move here.

Imagine a more extreme but similar argument.

"Our town's sewer system has a chance of backing up and, if it does, for the next few years raw sewage will flow in the streets. If that happens, our population will drop, and we'll lose the needed tax revenue to fix the issue."

I think you'd obviously say that "Demographers expect the population to rise in the next few years" doesn't weaken that argument. It's the same thing you're trying to do here. "If we raise property taxes, people might move away... but demographers expect a population influx so we won't lose tax revenue."

They probably won't expect any longer if:
--we raise our property taxes significantly enough that it drives off *current* residence
--our sewer lines break and flood the streets for years.



With the current info. we have, no, we don't know which world is 'less bad.' But before answer 'A,' we don't have justification to think world 2 could even happen. But the big question we need to ask is, "Could NOT raising property taxes actually end up being worse than raising them?"

So, World 1 could be worse than world than World 2, and answer A introduces new information that makes me think World 2 could exist. So if we have justification that World 2 could exist, and World 2 could reasonably be worse than World 1, then the argument that we should not raise property taxes is weakened.

We go from an argument that gives no reason to think we shouldn't raise property taxes, and answer A that makes us wonder 'maybe we SHOULD raise property taxes,' so the conclusion that we shouldn't raise property taxes is weakened.



That is why I think D (and I specified 'if anything') strengthens the argument. It implies that any population lost has chance of being recovered if we just don't do anything, so let's not raise property taxes, drive off MORE people and potentially drive off the people who are expected to come. This strengthens the conclusion "we shouldn't raise property taxes."



The way you're trying to use D is to say "Actually the chain reaction that is your premise for "we should not raise property" taxes is broken, because if we raise property taxes D says that we actually WON'T lose even more population," which is an attempt to throw out the premise.

But for the reasons stated above, D doesn't actually even achieve at this. In the 'glacier/human migration' example you linked to, yes, the right answer quite explicitly says "Actually the premise is heavily flawed." Answer choice D doesn't do that, because the current population projections are based on CURRENT property taxes.

Again, you need to parse the difference between "Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years" and "There is good reason to think that the population of Stonebridge will increase substantially within the next several years even if property taxes are increased."

(NOTE: One thing that CR sneaks in that doesn't really appear elsewhere on the test is basic supply in demand. The more something costs, the less people will want it. An increase in property tax is an increase in cost that would decrease demand).
_________________

Hi Reed – thank you so much for the back and forth.

I dont' have any specific question - just some commentary.



I agree on this bit. demographers projections are based on "current" information.



If I can gently push back – I believe the yellow is bit of an assumption that you are making.

I don’t think we can say the “Yellow” piece for sure.

We don’t know the exact cause for why Demographers are projecting what they are projecting.

Perhaps Demographer’s projections are based on current property tax levels

---> So, if property tax levels INCREASE, perhaps demographers will subsequently change their projections

Perhaps Demographer’s projections are based on OTHER REASONS (a new college is coming to the region or a new Amazon HQ is coming to the region

---> In that case, demographers MAY NOT change their view even if property taxes go up.

Given we don’t know with ** 100 % certainty**, the yellow highlight bit (from D)

I should have read (D) as – we only know what Demographers think as of now




I agree – the lack of parsing the difference was my big error .

I certainly read (D) in the way the blue is laid out.

I didn’t read (d) in the way the green is laid out

I thought **whatever happens with property taxes ** -- property taxes low / property taxes high --> the demographers won’t change their prediction.

Yes, fair, "Based on" was imprecise phrasing on my part.

What I meant: "Demographers predictions are based on THE CURRENT PRESENT MOMENT (including whatever they think about property taxes, and, to bring in my previous analogy, the functioning of the sewer system)." But should property taxes increase (or the sewer system completely back up), these current predictions will need to be updated.
_________________

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.
_________________