Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 28 Feb 2017, 02:55

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 296 [0], given: 0

Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2007, 16:28
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who
(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan
(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected
(C) do not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected
(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics
(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2007, 16:42
Will go for 'D'
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 319
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: tax plan [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2007, 16:59
Wow this one took forever!! Answer is D.

(1)Support tax plan ------> NO chance of being elected
(2)Understand economics -------> do NOT support tax plan

(2) says there might be people who have NO idea how economics works but they still do NOT support the tax plan. Remember (2) is not putting any restriction on people who do NOT understand economics.

(1) allows only the people who do NOT support the tax plan to be elected.

Hence it is very much possible that some dodo who does NOT understand economics might get elected. This destroys the argument that, "ONLY someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected"
Director
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 567
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: tax plan [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2007, 18:21
eyunni wrote:
Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who
(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan
(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected
(C) do not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected
(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics
(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

D for me.

Reasoning goes:

Understand Eco----> does NOT support plan-----> win election.
so
Understand Eco---->win election.
however

does NOT support plan-----> win election is a possible scenario.

D captures the flaw in reasoning by stating that there are people who do not support plan and do not understand economics.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 368
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: tax plan [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2007, 19:50
eyunni wrote:
Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who
(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan
(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected
(C) do not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected
(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics
(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

Its D
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: tax plan [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2007, 01:48
eyunni wrote:
Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who
(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan
(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected
(C) do not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected
(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics
(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

My ans. is B, what is the OA ?
Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 74
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2007, 02:22
I was caught between B and D.

B - is also a possiblity but can be inferred from the last statement that all the people who understand economics may not be elected. Hence this option is also covered.

Then we are left out with D, which cannot be inferred.

I guess D may be correct. What is OA?
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 296 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2007, 05:34
appuvar wrote:
I was caught between B and D.

B - is also a possiblity but can be inferred from the last statement that all the people who understand economics may not be elected. Hence this option is also covered.

Then we are left out with D, which cannot be inferred.

I guess D may be correct. What is OA?

OA is D.
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 430 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR 1000: tax plan [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2007, 09:16
1
KUDOS
eyunni wrote:
Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who truly understands economics would have any chance of being elected.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that some people who
(A) truly understand economics do not support the tax plan
(B) truly understand economics have no chance of being elected
(C) do not support the tax plan have no chance of being elected
(D) do not support the tax plan do not truly understand economics
(E) have no chance of being elected do not truly understand economics

I stared at this for a min. then decided to write this on paper. (Once I did, answer became very clear).

Support Tax= No elect.
U. Econ = No support Tax
Only econ = elect.

now btwn B and D. I don't see why B is wrong, but the language in D is much stronger than B. So I went for D. Now that I look at it, I think B contradicts the argument.
Re: CR 1000: tax plan   [#permalink] 17 Oct 2007, 09:16
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 Urban planner: The mayor of Dismaston supports a new tax code that wou 5 04 Apr 2016, 08:53
4 Supporters of a costly new Defense 4 02 Jun 2015, 20:43
12 Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who 8 17 Jul 2011, 06:23
19 Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for 26 27 Apr 2011, 21:26
1 Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so 3 16 Feb 2010, 07:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by