Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax.

Question

Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.

Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.

Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?

A. Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between No change and no decrease 
B. calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change. 
C. Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen.
D. showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect 
E. pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the effect that Soniya predicts it will have

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Well, choice (E) appears to have a transcription error ("seems to have the  predicts  it will have"??), so if someone encounters this question in the software, please let us know what it says.

Choice (E) probably says, "E: pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the  effect that Sonya  predicts it will have." The reason (E) is incorrect is that both Sonya and Raoul agree that the tax will have little if any effect on cigarette consumption. Raoul doesn't claim that the plan isn't  bold  enough to increase government revenue. Instead, Raoul introduces an effect that Sonya does not mention (that illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes will increase). This effect would weaken Sonya's conclusion, so choice (B) is more accurate. If anything, Raoul would agree that the plan is TOO bold (i.e. that the modest increase in price WILL have negative consequences that lower tax revenue).

I hope that helps!

shahnandan · Answer

Raoul agrees with the fact that cigarette sales are unlikely to decrease but doesnt quite agree that government revenues are going to increase as well. He points to smuggling of lower priced cigarettes as a pointer to decreased government revenues.  B .

Divyadisha · Answer

Sonya's Conclusion:- government revenue from the tax will increase.

Raoul- Cigarette smoking will not decrease, but the cigarettes will be imported from some other place.

Inference:- If these are exported then government will not be benefitted from tax.

Basically, the change/ increase in tax will lead to alternate effect (getting cigarettes from other place). And, sonya's conclusion is not supported.
only option B mentioned this correctly.

aceGMAT21 · Answer

Raoul-Sonya-CR.png

chesstitans · Answer

Why E is not the answer? In other words, what is the difference between B and E?

KarishmaB · Answer

Sonya: Even with the increase in cigarette tax, the prices will be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. So, revenue from the tax will increase. Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high though with increased prices, illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes (from countries with lower prices) may start. Sonya and Raoul have opposing views. Sonya claims that revenue from tax will increase. Raoul feels that revenue may not increase (though he doesn’t say it explicitly). Raoul presents an additional consideration (illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes may start) that weakens Sonya’s conclusion (revenue from the tax will increase). So, the ‘method of disagreement’ here is (iv) One can provide additional data that weakens the conclusion. (A) Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between no change and no decrease Raoul does not question Sonya’s support (premises). He questions Sonya’s conclusion by bringing in an additional factor. (B) Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change. Correct. He points out the possible effect (smuggling) of tax increase to question Sonya’s conclusion.   (C) Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedence for what she predicts will happen.   He does not ask for a precedence.   (D) Showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect.    The cause is increased taxes and the effect Sonya claims is increased revenue. He does not offer an additional cause for increased revenue. (E) Pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the effect that Soniya predicts it will have The boldness of the initiative is not discussed. Answer (B) Method Questions are discussed here: https://youtu.be/uA5aXAZI1Z8

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax.

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax.

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards