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.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
nightblade354
Expert
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,781
Given Kudos: 3,304
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert reply
16 Oct 2018, 11:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (01:53) correct
55%
(01:58)
wrong
based on 1444
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?
(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?
(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted
nightblade354
Expert
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,781
Given Kudos: 3,304
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert reply
17 Oct 2018, 05:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?
The big thing about this problem isn't breaking it down into premises/conclusions. The thing to understand is context, similar to that of an SC question. To begin, the question splits into two categories: the "only if" vs "if". Most people catch that the question stem says "only if", pushing people to (A) or (B). This is what LSAT wants you to do; they want you to fall into this trap. As I explain below, watch the context. They want you to reverse a sufficient condition for a necessary condition, which is where most get tripped up in (A)
Diagram: Homelessness problem -- little being done -- ignoring doesn't work -- only if Gov. helps (and leads to taxes) will it go away (this is our conclusion)
Breaking down A and C further:
A: Measure should be adopted ---> Measure is required to solve a problem
C: Measure is required to solve a problem ---> then it should be adopted
(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted -- The measure is taxation. Is taxation required to solve the problem? Nope. Government intervention is required, which will bring taxation. In other words: Only if taxation is required to solve a problem, it should be adopted. Reverses the correct answer.
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted -- This is not our conclusion. This says that if sufficient -- do it.
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted -- This is word for word what we want. If taxation is required to solve a problem, it should be adopted. Bingo
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted -- This says if it is sufficient then we should adopt. That is not what our conclusion is saying, so this is out
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted -- "any steps" is way off, as we only talk about one solution. Beyond this, same issue as D
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?
The big thing about this problem isn't breaking it down into premises/conclusions. The thing to understand is context, similar to that of an SC question. To begin, the question splits into two categories: the "only if" vs "if". Most people catch that the question stem says "only if", pushing people to (A) or (B). This is what LSAT wants you to do; they want you to fall into this trap. As I explain below, watch the context. They want you to reverse a sufficient condition for a necessary condition, which is where most get tripped up in (A)
Diagram: Homelessness problem -- little being done -- ignoring doesn't work -- only if Gov. helps (and leads to taxes) will it go away (this is our conclusion)
Breaking down A and C further:
A: Measure should be adopted ---> Measure is required to solve a problem
C: Measure is required to solve a problem ---> then it should be adopted
(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted -- The measure is taxation. Is taxation required to solve the problem? Nope. Government intervention is required, which will bring taxation. In other words: Only if taxation is required to solve a problem, it should be adopted. Reverses the correct answer.
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted -- This is not our conclusion. This says that if sufficient -- do it.
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted -- This is word for word what we want. If taxation is required to solve a problem, it should be adopted. Bingo
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted -- This says if it is sufficient then we should adopt. That is not what our conclusion is saying, so this is out
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted -- "any steps" is way off, as we only talk about one solution. Beyond this, same issue as D
25 Oct 2018, 00:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
nightblade354
Premises:
Homelessness is a problem.
The problem will go away only if the govt steps in to provide houses.
For Govt to provide housing, taxes need to be increased.
Conclusion: So we should raise taxes.
The measure being talked about is raising taxes. That is what is under discussion (whether it should be adopted or not).
The premises tell us that taxes NEED to be increased to provide housing. So one part of our choice is clear - "a measure is required" (not sufficient). The premises tell us that increase in taxes is required.
Now the choice is between "Only if" and "If".
The premises do not say that one should not raise taxes otherwise. It does not say that we should raise taxes only if it is required to solve the problem. The premises tell us that if it is necessary to raise taxes to solve this problem, we should raise taxes.
Answer (C)
