It is currently 23 Feb 2018, 00:52

Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The following argument took place at a recent town meeting

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

5 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 143
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2015, 17:54
5
This post received
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (01:44) correct 46% (01:48) wrong based on 406 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The following argument took place at a recent town meeting in Sun Grove, a well known tourist destination:

Local Newspaper Editor: Our town government continues to be fiscally irresponsible. Members of the town council have just approved over $120,000 in new salaries for three parking enforcement officers that the town simply cannot afford.

Town Mayor: Your argument is completely unfounded! Hiring new parking enforcement officers will help the town’s financial situation, not hurt it. Typically a parking enforcement officer brings in over twice what they are paid, so these three officers will surely have a net positive effect on the town budget in the future.

Which of the following exposes a flaw in the Town Mayor’s argument?

[A]There is a saturation point at which additional parking enforcement officers bring in slightly less than the officers hired before them.

[B]More parking enforcement typically incentivizes both tourists and locals to take public transportation, increasing profits on buses and trains owned by the town.

[C]Tourism is the primary revenue generator for the town of Sun Grove, and visitors rarely return to a tourist destination after receiving a ticket.

[D]Fines for parking are going to be increased dramatically, which usually results in fewer overall tickets being issued.

[E]Sun Grove has a policy that it will not take legal action if an individual has one unpaid parking ticket.


Press Kudos if you like the question.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Regards,
Manish Khare
"Every thing is fine at the end. If it is not fine ,then it is not the end "

Expert Post
5 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7955
Location: Pune, India
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2015, 21:10
5
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
manishkhare wrote:
The following argument took place at a recent town meeting in Sun Grove, a well known tourist destination:

Local Newspaper Editor: Our town government continues to be fiscally irresponsible. Members of the town council have just approved over $120,000 in new salaries for three parking enforcement officers that the town simply cannot afford.

Town Mayor: Your argument is completely unfounded! Hiring new parking enforcement officers will help the town’s financial situation, not hurt it. Typically a parking enforcement officer brings in over twice what they are paid, so these three officers will surely have a net positive effect on the town budget in the future.

Which of the following exposes a flaw in the Town Mayor’s argument?

[A]There is a saturation point at which additional parking enforcement officers bring in slightly less than the officers hired before them.

[B]More parking enforcement typically incentivizes both tourists and locals to take public transportation, increasing profits on buses and trains owned by the town.

[C]Tourism is the primary revenue generator for the town of Sun Grove, and visitors rarely return to a tourist destination after receiving a ticket.

[D]Fines for parking are going to be increased dramatically, which usually results in fewer overall tickets being issued.

[E]Sun Grove has a policy that it will not take legal action if an individual has one unpaid parking ticket.


Press Kudos if you like the question.


Focus on what the Town Mayor says: "Hiring new parking enforcement officers will help the town’s financial situation, not hurt it. Typically a parking enforcement officer brings in over twice what they are paid, so these three officers will surely have a net positive effect on the town budget in the future."

Essentially, he is saying that the hiring of the officers will have a net positive effect on the budget in future.

Option (C) tells you that the hiring could actually have a negative effect on the future budget. More officers will mean more tickets being issued and that might discourage the tourists from coming in again. Hence, it weakens the mayor's argument since the hiring could have a net negative effect on the future budget.

The only other relevant options are (A) and (D)

[A]There is a saturation point at which additional parking enforcement officers bring in slightly less than the officers hired before them.
This tells you that the positive effect may be SLIGHTLY less. So it is not a flaw in the mayor's argument. The hiring could still have a net positive effect on the budget.

[D]Fines for parking are going to be increased dramatically, which usually results in fewer overall tickets being issued.
If parking fine amount will be increased, it will increase the revenue. If fewer tickets will be issued, it will reduce the revenue. Overall, we don't know the impact. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the hiring of three new enforcement officers and the effect that will have.

Hence answer (C)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 369
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 May 2016, 06:29
Missed this one ... it was A vs C ... good explanation above :)
_________________

" The few , the fearless "

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 3
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2016, 22:04
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
manishkhare wrote:
The following argument took place at a recent town meeting in Sun Grove, a well known tourist destination:

Local Newspaper Editor: Our town government continues to be fiscally irresponsible. Members of the town council have just approved over $120,000 in new salaries for three parking enforcement officers that the town simply cannot afford.

Town Mayor: Your argument is completely unfounded! Hiring new parking enforcement officers will help the town’s financial situation, not hurt it. Typically a parking enforcement officer brings in over twice what they are paid, so these three officers will surely have a net positive effect on the town budget in the future.

Which of the following exposes a flaw in the Town Mayor’s argument?

[A]There is a saturation point at which additional parking enforcement officers bring in slightly less than the officers hired before them.

[B]More parking enforcement typically incentivizes both tourists and locals to take public transportation, increasing profits on buses and trains owned by the town.

[C]Tourism is the primary revenue generator for the town of Sun Grove, and visitors rarely return to a tourist destination after receiving a ticket.

[D]Fines for parking are going to be increased dramatically, which usually results in fewer overall tickets being issued.

[E]Sun Grove has a policy that it will not take legal action if an individual has one unpaid parking ticket.


Press Kudos if you like the question.


Focus on what the Town Mayor says: "Hiring new parking enforcement officers will help the town’s financial situation, not hurt it. Typically a parking enforcement officer brings in over twice what they are paid, so these three officers will surely have a net positive effect on the town budget in the future."

Essentially, he is saying that the hiring of the officers will have a net positive effect on the budget in future.

Option (C) tells you that the hiring could actually have a negative effect on the future budget. More officers will mean more tickets being issued and that might discourage the tourists from coming in again. Hence, it weakens the mayor's argument since the hiring could have a net negative effect on the future budget.

The only other relevant options are (A) and (D)

[A]There is a saturation point at which additional parking enforcement officers bring in slightly less than the officers hired before them.
This tells you that the positive effect may be SLIGHTLY less. So it is not a flaw in the mayor's argument. The hiring could still have a net positive effect on the budget.

[D]Fines for parking are going to be increased dramatically, which usually results in fewer overall tickets being issued.
If parking fine amount will be increased, it will increase the revenue. If fewer tickets will be issued, it will reduce the revenue. Overall, we don't know the impact. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the hiring of three new enforcement officers and the effect that will have.

Hence answer (C)



Hi Karishma,

Are we not making additional assumption in Answer choice C such as "Tourists will sure be given tickets"?
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7955
Location: Pune, India
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2016, 00:18
psrehal wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
manishkhare wrote:
The following argument took place at a recent town meeting in Sun Grove, a well known tourist destination:

Local Newspaper Editor: Our town government continues to be fiscally irresponsible. Members of the town council have just approved over $120,000 in new salaries for three parking enforcement officers that the town simply cannot afford.

Town Mayor: Your argument is completely unfounded! Hiring new parking enforcement officers will help the town’s financial situation, not hurt it. Typically a parking enforcement officer brings in over twice what they are paid, so these three officers will surely have a net positive effect on the town budget in the future.

Which of the following exposes a flaw in the Town Mayor’s argument?

[A]There is a saturation point at which additional parking enforcement officers bring in slightly less than the officers hired before them.

[B]More parking enforcement typically incentivizes both tourists and locals to take public transportation, increasing profits on buses and trains owned by the town.

[C]Tourism is the primary revenue generator for the town of Sun Grove, and visitors rarely return to a tourist destination after receiving a ticket.

[D]Fines for parking are going to be increased dramatically, which usually results in fewer overall tickets being issued.

[E]Sun Grove has a policy that it will not take legal action if an individual has one unpaid parking ticket.


Press Kudos if you like the question.


Focus on what the Town Mayor says: "Hiring new parking enforcement officers will help the town’s financial situation, not hurt it. Typically a parking enforcement officer brings in over twice what they are paid, so these three officers will surely have a net positive effect on the town budget in the future."

Essentially, he is saying that the hiring of the officers will have a net positive effect on the budget in future.

Option (C) tells you that the hiring could actually have a negative effect on the future budget. More officers will mean more tickets being issued and that might discourage the tourists from coming in again. Hence, it weakens the mayor's argument since the hiring could have a net negative effect on the future budget.

The only other relevant options are (A) and (D)

[A]There is a saturation point at which additional parking enforcement officers bring in slightly less than the officers hired before them.
This tells you that the positive effect may be SLIGHTLY less. So it is not a flaw in the mayor's argument. The hiring could still have a net positive effect on the budget.

[D]Fines for parking are going to be increased dramatically, which usually results in fewer overall tickets being issued.
If parking fine amount will be increased, it will increase the revenue. If fewer tickets will be issued, it will reduce the revenue. Overall, we don't know the impact. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the hiring of three new enforcement officers and the effect that will have.

Hence answer (C)



Hi Karishma,

Are we not making additional assumption in Answer choice C such as "Tourists will sure be given tickets"?


It is logical that an increase in number of tickets given will result in an increase in number of tickets given to both locals and tourists. There is no reason to assume that tourists will not get more tickets too.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Apr 2017, 17:31
Hi Karishma,

Are we not making additional assumption in Answer choice C such as "Tourists will sure be given tickets"?[/quote]

It is logical that an increase in number of tickets given will result in an increase in number of tickets given to both locals and tourists. There is no reason to assume that tourists will not get more tickets too.[/quote]

Is it not logical to think most tourists do not drive?
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 147
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2017, 04:23
Yes, its perfectly logical to think this:
mrdlee23 wrote:
Is it not logical to think most tourists do not drive?


But, what we are doing here is exposing possible ways that will hurt the argument. Since, flaw and assumption are two sides of the same coin, negation do work very well for flaw too....:
Quote:
C. Tourism is the primary revenue generator for the town of Sun Grove, and visitors rarely do return to a tourist destination after receiving a ticket.
- does this support the argument ? Yes it does. It shows that the visitor, the main source of revenue, will return - thus strengthening the conclusion by eliminating other possible cause that may work against the prediction - "net positive effect on the town budget in the future".

The only problem I can see in this problem - C is more of a weakener than a flaw as it does provide an additional evidence and not a statement that is inherent to the logic of the argument.
_________________

If you find my posts/replies helpful, please take a moment to click on the "kudos" icon.

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7955
Location: Pune, India
The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2017, 22:03
mrdlee23 wrote:
Hi Karishma,

Are we not making additional assumption in Answer choice C such as "Tourists will sure be given tickets"?

It is logical that an increase in number of tickets given will result in an increase in number of tickets given to both locals and tourists. There is no reason to assume that tourists will not get more tickets too.

Is it not logical to think most tourists do not drive?


There is no reason to assume that most tourists do not drive. In fact, in many cities, you do not have a good public transport system and hiring a car is the best option. In any case, even if say, only 10% tourists drive, considering that tourism is the main economic driver, it may actually lead to big numbers.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 7
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2017, 01:58
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
mrdlee23 wrote:
Hi Karishma,

Are we not making additional assumption in Answer choice C such as "Tourists will sure be given tickets"?

It is logical that an increase in number of tickets given will result in an increase in number of tickets given to both locals and tourists. There is no reason to assume that tourists will not get more tickets too.

Is it not logical to think most tourists do not drive?


There is no reason to assume that most tourists do not drive. In fact, in many cities, you do not have a good public transport system and hiring a car is the best option. In any case, even if say, only 10% tourists drive, considering that tourism is the main economic driver, it may actually lead to big numbers.


Hi Karishma,

Newspaper editor is claiming that the decision to fiscally worth it. "fiscally" here doesn't specify which revenue we are particularly talking about her. I am going to assume that fiscally means revenue from tickets issued + revenue from tourists.

For C to be correct, we need to assume that returning visitors contribute significantly to the revenue and the additional revenue from ticketing will not offset the decrease in revenue from the non returning customers.

For A to be correct, i do agree with that if the ticketing revenue < the salary offered, the hired personnel will still be getting some +ve revenue, except if ticketing hurts revenue from tourists (as in C).

No option seems iron clad.
Re: The following argument took place at a recent town meeting   [#permalink] 07 Apr 2017, 01:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The following argument took place at a recent town meeting

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.