Regional population expansion, particularly in suburban municipalities

Regional population expansion, particularly in suburban municipalities that can attract large corporations to open new offices, can frequently overwhelm the city’s municipal services, such as waste disposal, electricity, and water supply. Since it typically takes several months to train a new city employee, it would be wise for municipalities to have mandated additional worker capacity for vital services to act as a temporary buffer in the event of rapid population growth. However, such a policy is unlikely given that the current budgets of the vast majority of municipalities could not absorb that immediate additional expense.


Conclusion is .....it would be wise for municipalities to have mandated additional worker capacity for vital services to act as a temporary buffer in the event of rapid population growth.

The counter premise to this conclusion is "such a policy is unlikely given that the current budgets of the vast majority of municipalities could not absorb that immediate additional expense."

Basically, counter premise is provided to protect the argument against weakeners and any thing supporting this counter-premise will support the argument.

Let's evaluate the answer choices:

(A) Tax revenue generated from new residents is typically collected in the subsequent year. hold here first.

(B) Tax incentives are one of the most common means communities use to lure corporations to open offices.-- no way.

(C) Several small municipalities have accommodated significant population expansions without an interruption of vital services.- weakener.

(D) New residents are more likely to vote on local ballot measures involving the quality of vital services.- not bearing on conclusion.

(E) When financially strained, municipalities will typically cut non-vital services before cutting vital services.--- argument talks only about the vital services. so, out.

With (A) as well....

If tax revenue for this year is collected next year , then the additional expenses will have to be borne by last years revenue ( this years Budget ) , and the municipalities are not in a position to absorb the expenses of additional worker ...

Thus IMHO (A) strengthens the arguement...

EMPOWERgmat Official Explanation
Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: Extra city workers good, but city can’t afford
Missing Information: Relevance of current budgets. What about the future budget in light of new residents?
Goal: Strengthen questions require us to select an option that helps reinforce the underlying logic of the argument. It’s important to note that a correct option in a Strengthen question need not definitively prove the argument, but rather add reinforcement to a weak aspect of an argument’s reasoning. In this case, the argument focuses on the financial commitments of current budgets, and ignores the total fiscal impact of new residents. Specifically, the argument only focuses on the expense of new residents, but what about possible tax revenue generated by these new residents (particularly if they’re moving to these communities for specific job opportunities)? In that case, the revenue from the new residents as they arrive could more than cover the necessary fiscal requirements to support additional municipal employees.

(A) Tax revenue generated from new residents is typically collected in the subsequent year.
Yes! Since the argument is making the case that these municipalities cannot afford to maintain extra vital services staff, this option reinforces that claim by pointing out that the revenue collected from the new residents is unlikely to be received until the subsequent year, thus having additional vital services staff could create a problematic intermediate budgetary shortfall.From a GMAT CR argument standpoint, this option is showing that when an argument omits a likely challenge (revenue from new residents can cover new expenses), the way to strengthen the argument is to reduce the likelihood that the challenge is a possibility.

(B) Tax incentives are one of the most common means communities use to lure corporations to open offices.
What's attracting new companies to these municipalities is of absolutely no relevance to an argument dealing with how to pay for services that new residents require. That’s a completely different topic from the one the argument is discussing.

(C) Several small municipalities have accommodated significant population expansions without an interruption of vital services.
Nope. Besides the fact that an option hinting at the possibility municipalities CAN maintain vital services with an influx of new residents runs counter to the argument, this option commits a classic GMAT test-writer technique: mentioning what “some” do when it’s not clear how meaningful “some” is to the totality of the issue. Even though this option is a 180, let’s experiment. Let’s say that the option actually said that some municipalities have had trouble maintaining vital services during influxes of new residents. Would there be any way to know that “some” communities are representative of municipalities in general? No. Let alone the municipalities in question in this argument.

(D) New residents are more likely to vote on local ballot measures involving the quality of vital services.
Even though this option attempts to show that new residents take some degree of interest in local policy, it’s not clear how an interest in local affairs actually impacts the quality of service or the challenges associated with supporting excess vital services workers. This option is Out of Focus.

(E) When financially strained, municipalities will typically cut non-vital services before cutting vital services.
This option touches on a possible factor that could soften the force of the argument. If municipalities can find ways to cover vital services in the face of an influx of new residents by trimming non-vital services, that would weaken the overall magnitude of the challenge the argument centers on when we’re tasked to reinforce it.