12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 8: City councilperson: Las

Conclusion: The campaign should be self-sufficient for as long as there is a concern regarding the number of teens vaping in our town.

Premise: The campaign was in large part funded by a tax levied on all tobacco and nicotine products purchased in town.

We should find additional evidence that would strengthen our conclusion that the campaign would be self-sufficient, given that the funding was provided by the tax levied on all tobacco and nicotine products purchased in town.

A. Residents of the town in question do not purchase tobacco or nicotine products in any significant quantity from other localities. This strengthens our conclusion because as long as the tobacco and nicotine products are locally bought, then the tax collected wouldn't decrease and funds wouldn't decrease as a result.

B. Recent surveys have indicated that teens living in the councilperson’s town are more likely to vape than are teens in neighboring cities. Irrelevant

C. Tobacco use in the councilperson’s town has declined greatly since vaping products have become more readily available in the marketplace. Quite the opposite of what we are looking for. If tobacco consumption has decreased, then the funding would be impacted.

D. Other social media campaigns sponsored by the town in question have had mixed results. Irrelevant

E. Many voters in the town doubt the necessity of the social media campaign to publicize the dangers of vaping to teens. Irrelevant.

My answer is A.

Pre thinking

The councilperson's argument lies assuming that the fact the tobacco or nicotine products purchased from the town itself. Thus any purchased product will generate tax which can be used for the campaign. Thus till the tobacco or nicotine products are purchased, enough tax will be generated to fuel the campaign.


A. Residents of the town in question do not purchase tobacco or nicotine products in any significant quantity from other localities.

This is inline with our pre thinking

B. Recent surveys have indicated that teens living in the councilperson’s town are more likely to vape than are teens in neighboring cities.

Out of Scope : We are not concerned about what is happening in other town.

C. Tobacco use in the councilperson’s town has declined greatly since vaping products have become more readily available in the marketplace.

Distortion : Doesn't throw light on how the sale of tobaccos or nicotine products would fuel the campaign.

D. Other social media campaigns sponsored by the town in question have had mixed results.

Out of Scope

E. Many voters in the town doubt the necessity of the social media campaign to publicize the dangers of vaping to teens.

Out of Scope - Total disaster !

IMO - A

City councilperson: Last year, our town paid for a robust social media campaign to publicize the dangers of nicotine vaping to teens. The campaign was in large part funded by a tax levied on all tobacco and nicotine products purchased in town. Therefore, the campaign should be self-sufficient for as long as there is a concern regarding the number of teens vaping in our town.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the city councilperson’s argument?


A. Residents of the town in question do not purchase tobacco or nicotine products in any significant quantity from other localities.

B. Recent surveys have indicated that teens living in the councilperson’s town are more likely to vape than are teens in neighboring cities.

C. Tobacco use in the councilperson’s town has declined greatly since vaping products have become more readily available in the marketplace.

D. Other social media campaigns sponsored by the town in question have had mixed results.

E. Many voters in the town doubt the necessity of the social media campaign to publicize the dangers of vaping to teens.

Technique:
Read the stem--it is your roadmap, your set of instructions, the key to what TECHNIQUE you will use:
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the city councilperson’s argument?

Question Type: Strengthen

Technique: (1)Find the conclusion. The conclusion is GOLD. Stick to it! (2)ADD a premise (maybe this is an ASSUMPTION and you must fill in the missing premise OR just add ANOTHER REASON this conclusion is true based on the newly strengthened argument.) (3) Give a GENERAL PREDICTION of what your answer will "sound like".
Caution: DO NOT rule an answer out b/c "That is not what they are talking about." While you MUST stay within the general parameter of the argument, you WILL be adding information!
Find comparisons/connections to strengthen the argument. There is almost always some pair of things being compared or connected and you can strengthen that interaction between the premises and conclusion

Conclusion: the campaign should be self-sufficient for as long as there is a concern regarding the number of teens vaping in our town.

Premise: "robust social media campaign to publicize the dangers of nicotine vaping to teens" (assume it will work. Don't argue with GMAT questions!)

MAJOR Premise: The campaign was in large part funded by a tax levied on all tobacco and nicotine products purchased in town.

Implication/connection/Prediction:
Conclusion again: "should be self-sufficient" (we will have enough $), "as long as there is a concern regarding the number of teens vaping in our town" (as long as teens buy the products)
So, where did we get the money from?
The teens who live in town. (MAJOR Premise: The campaign was in large part funded by a tax levied on all tobacco and nicotine products purchased in town.)
Connections/Comparisons: We need enough money for the campaign (funded by tobacco bought by teens in this town) to last as long as we are concerned about tobacco use in our teens. The conclusion says we seem to have it. Make it STRONGER!

How can we strengthen THAT? It seems rather strong.
If teens are vaping (there is concern) ----> Then $ from their purchases (in town) goes into a campaign to get them to stop.

A GENERAL PREDICTION is far more helpful than a specific prediction--good thing, b/c I don't have a specific prediction this time!
General Prediction: I need an answer that "keeps the campaign going if there are still teens vaping in town." I cannot just repeat the "major premise" above.


Go time:

A. Residents of the town in question do not purchase tobacco or nicotine products in any significant quantity from other localities.

Hmmm. I'm not sure this is related. We are discussing the social media campaign funded by the products bought in town---- OOOOH, lightbulb, If all products are bought out of town... there will be no $ for the campaign and yet there will still be teens we are concerned about. THIS IS IT!

B. Recent surveys have indicated that teens living in the councilperson’s town are more likely to vape than are teens in neighboring cities.

This does not affect the conclusion that when products are bought in town they go to the campaign. Maybe if there are more teens, we need a more robust campaign. Good thing we will get a lot of $ from those sales! NOT.

C. Tobacco use in the councilperson’s town has declined greatly since vaping products have become more readily available in the marketplace.

Hmmm. Vaping products still use tobacco??? Vaping does not produce a loss of sales from tobacco--unless I suppose everyone is vaping weed--in which case... Oh--it doesn't matter. Way out of the scope of the argument. NOPE.

D. Other social media campaigns sponsored by the town in question have had mixed results.

The past is not a real predictor of the future. We have no comparisons. This gives us no information about this campaign or if we will have enough $ for it.
NOT.

E. Many voters in the town doubt the necessity of the social media campaign to publicize the dangers of vaping to teens.

Huh? This is not related to teens consuming tobacco, us being concerned about them OR if we have enough $ for our campaign. NO RELEVANCE!

A is IT!