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
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Are you attending an MBA or Masters program outside in the US or Europe and wondering how to finance your studies? In this exclusive conversation, we discuss the collateral-free non-cosigner education loans...
Solve 30 high quality GMAT Focus practice questions in timed conditions. Take this GMAT practise test live with peers, analyze your GMAT study progress, and see where you stand in the GMAT student pool.
Join us in a comprehensive talk about the F1 Student Visa process with Travis Feuerbacher, former U.S. Visa Officer and licensed U.S. immigration attorney having expertise working for the U.S. Department of State
Ready to skyrocket your career with an MBA? Get ahead with our curated list of FREE courses and resources to kickstart your journey into business education!
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, and Excel in timed test environment
Join us for an exclusive one-day event focused on mastering the GMAT and maximizing your preparation resources! Here's what you can expect: Don't miss out on this invaluable opportunity to supercharge your GMAT preparation journey.
Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for
[#permalink]
22 Jan 2006, 01:32
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for residents of Eastbury is $30,105. 2 years ago, it was 11% lower. This can be directly attributed to the comprehensive set of tax cuts that I helped get approved in Congress.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion drawn by the Senator?
A) The average per-capita after-tax income for residents of Eastbury who fall below the poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years.
B) The Senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts.
C) The no of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years.
D) The Federal tax rate increased 6% during the four years prior to the implementation of tax cuts.
E) A recent change in the state laws did not substantially increase the average per-capita after-tax income of the residents of Eastbury.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for
[#permalink]
22 Jan 2006, 07:41
A) The average per-capita after-tax income for residents of Eastbury who fall below the poverty line increased by 16% in the last 5 years.
No. Weakening... B) The Senator has not personally benefited from the tax cuts.
No. OOS C) The no of residents of Eastbury has not substantially changed in the last two years.
No. OOS D) The Federal tax rate increased 6% during the four years prior to the implementation of tax cuts.
No. OOS E) A recent change in the state laws did not substantially increase the average per-capita after-tax income of the residents of Eastbury.
Correct. Since state tax change did not increase after-tax income, then the federal tax did.
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for
[#permalink]
22 Jan 2006, 11:44
Defenitely have to agree with the explanation of ceo!
E should be it. If senator's tax cut's have to be the sole cause, there shouldn't be any other changes in the tax laws. _________________
"To dream anything that you want to dream, that is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do, that is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself, to test your limits, that is the courage to succeed."
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for
[#permalink]
22 Jan 2006, 16:12
Its between C and E
but i m more inclined towards C...
In E ,we dont know about which laws the author is talking about..It can be any law which has no effect on taxes too
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for
[#permalink]
22 Jan 2006, 23:01
My vote is for C.
Basically, we need to suppress any other reason which could be responsible for the increase in the per capita income. In C, we effectively rule out that reason strengthen the argument and conclude that the income increased solely as a result of the tax cuts.
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for
[#permalink]
22 Jan 2006, 23:15
I am voting for C. Had the population drastically reduced, the per capita would have increased and hence the senator's point weakened. So if we are told that the population did not change drastically we can rule out that weakness from the senators statement and hence strengthen it.
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for
[#permalink]
24 Jan 2006, 13:19
Much as I hate to say it, the ans is E. In fact, I marked C too in the test.
This is the OE:
Quote:
The CONCLUSION: The set of tax cuts caused the increase in after-tax income.
THE EVIDENCE: This is a classic case of concluding that a causal relationship exists (the tax cuts caused an increase in after-tax income) based only on a correlation (the tax cuts happenned before the increase)
If another cause can be shown to have contributed to the after-tax increase in income, then that would weaken the argument. By ruling out the possibility of an alternative cause (change in estate laws), the argument is strengthened.
According to OE, the no of residents (C) is irrelevant.
I agree with the OE till the pt where it says, if another cause can be shown to have contributed to the after-tax increase in income, then that would weaken the argument. Thus if the question asked for a weakening statement and supplied change in estate laws as a possible reason for increase of after-tax income, that could have weakened the argument as it clearly gives another possible explanation. However, the opposite is not true. There could be a 1000 other causes why after-tax income increased. E does not conclusively exclude all of them. C is obviously relevant as if population is constant, then a good reason for income increase might be decrease in taxes.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
gmatclubot
Re: Senator: The average per-capita after-tax income for [#permalink]