The government is considering legislation that would reduce

Question

The government is considering legislation that would reduce tax benefits for parents opening college savings funds for their children. If passed, the new laws would result in greatly decreased tax benefits for parents who open such accounts. Therefore, if the new laws pass, many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend.

The argument above assumes which of the following?
 
A. For most college-bound children, their parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the only source of educational funding.
 
B. The legislation is being considered because many parents were misusing savings funds dedicated to their childrenâ€™sâ€™ educational costs.
 
C. College-bound children cannot open savings funds separately from their parents.
 
D. Because of decreased tax benefits, some parents will not open college savings funds for their children.
 
E. Parents facing the new restrictions on college funds will find other investments to dedicate to their childrenâ€™sâ€™ educational costs.

forrestgump · Answer

A

A - tells me why the student cant fund his education. in line with the argument.

B - I am not concerned why the legislation is being considered.

C - doesnt mean that they dont have other ways to fund.

D - I am not sure how to negate this option

E - What am I talking abt here....if the parents can find other options - why the need of the argument ???

Bhimsen · Answer

Hi MA,

 Conclusion for the above statement is â€œTherefore, if the new laws pass, many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend.â€

rthothad · Answer

I will go with 'A'

'D' mentions only  some parents  will not open college savings funds for their children but the conclusion is "if the new laws pass,  many college-bound individuals  will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend".

maaverick · Answer

I'll go with (D)

The argument states that the new law would result in decreased tax benefits (for parents) from the college fund. Thereafter, it states that if the law is passed, it would have an adverse impact on the finances of many college-bound individuals. 

In the absence of any other information, it follows that this financial impact can only result when parents divert their savings out of the college fund because of reduced tax benefits.

Bhimsen · Answer

Maarverick,
How would you justify "and some would not be able to attend".

The reason "their parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the only source of educational funding. " I feel is much better than "some parents will not open college savings funds for their childre

maaverick · Answer

Tough call, Bhimsen.

Quoting a part of the argument: "Therefore, if the new laws pass,  many  college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and  some  would not be able to attend."

Notice the last part - it conveys that many college-bound individuals will have difficulty in covering their college costs. Of course,  many  will have difficulties, but only  some  will not be able to attend. 

Let us examine (A) "A. For  most  college-bound children, their parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the  only  source of educational funding." - if this be true - i.e. for most prospective students, if their parents' savings is the  only  source, then majority of them wouldn't be able to attend college. Whereas, the passage mentions that only SOME would not be able to attend college.

maaverick · Answer

MA - would be great if you could post the OA with explaination.

Thanks in anticipation!

patrickpui · Answer

I will go with A

Since these account is the only source of fund for most, a number of these students in the most group will face difficulties in paying for college. Nonetheless, that does not mean that all of these "most students" will not be able to pay for college.

For D to be true, A has to be assumed first. Just becasue people will not open these account does not mean that they will not be able to pay for college. Unless, unless the account is the key source of funding for college. 

This one is tricky.

Paul · Answer

Good question. I would go with A because D is more of an implicit conclusion rather than an assumption. If parents are unfavorably taxed, they will not open savings account for their children and hence, this is the  conclusion  to the new law being passed. However, the  real conclusion  of the argument claims that many college students will have difficulty going to college indirectly because of the new tax law affecting their parents. For this to hold, we have to assume that they depend on parents' fundings.

Bhimsen · Answer

If we chose option D then we have to make an assumption that parentsâ€™ savings account is the primary source of students funding. Which is explicitly stated in option A.

Hence A.

I agree with Maaverick that MA should reveal the OA as soon as possibleâ€¦
:roll:

MA · Answer

I am also not agree with OA, which is D. the logic behind D is that the argument assumes that a lower number of parents will open savings accounts, which will lead directly to less available funding for their childrenâ€™s college costs.

maaverick · Answer

Thanks for the OA, Ma. I quote my explaination once again - hopefully to clarify the basics of my reasoning. 

"In the absence of any other information, it follows that this financial impact can only result when parents divert their savings out of the college fund because of reduced tax benefits."

This was a tough one for sure!

Folaa3 · Answer

After reading thoroughly, A and D sounds the same but note the subtle difference between savings account (used in A) and college savings fund (used in D). 
I hope this explains the difference betweeen A and D though regardless of the similarities

kayser1soze · Answer

i am still not convinced that D is the OA. A seems right to me.

Paul · Answer

In hindsight, I would have to agree with D as best. A says that parentsâ€™ savings accounts are the  only  source of educational funding. This is too strong an assumption. Those savings accounts might be the  most important and single largest  source of funding but not necessarily the only one. If we negate A and say that there are other sources of funding although parents' funding accounts for 90% of student funding, a lack of the former can certainly endanger student access to colleges: We negated the assumption but yet, the argument still holds together. Hence, A is NOT an assumption.

Negate D and say that because of decreased tax benefits, some parents  will  open college savings funds for their children, this totally rips the argument apart. D wins for sure.

Going back to the basics and trying to negate the assumption is a great trick on these question types.

The government is considering legislation that would reduce

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