It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 13:01

### 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

# The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 226

Kudos [?]: 302 [1], given: 7

The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2012, 10:39
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:25) correct 35% (01:34) wrong based on 567 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes. As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use.
Which of the following is an additional premise required by the argument above?
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Kudos [?]: 302 [1], given: 7

Senior Manager
Status: You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 319

Kudos [?]: 219 [1], given: 159

Daboo: Sonu
GMAT 1: 590 Q49 V20
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2016, 00:22
1
KUDOS
shikhar wrote:
The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes. As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use.
Which of the following is an additional premise required by the argument above?
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.

Clearly A is the answer Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
_________________

You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come.

Give Kudos if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 219 [1], given: 159

VP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1354

Kudos [?]: 651 [0], given: 20

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2012, 00:22
Clear A - the argument assumes that prices will have to be raised to offset additional tax costs. This may not happen if the tobacco companies are able to meet the increased costs through cost cuts. They will then not have to increase prices.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Kudos [?]: 651 [0], given: 20

Manager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 7

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE: Project Management (Computer Software)
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2012, 09:38
Conclusions :
Removing Tax rebate on advertise expenses would compel companies to increase the prices of the product.

So any implicit assumption that would contribute in making this conclusion viable would be the right answer

Let's try to explore options :
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
- So conclusion would hold true - CORRECT

(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
- Conclusion may not hold true because companies may stop advertising to save money and in-turn prices will not rise - INCORRECT

(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
- Not directly relevant - INCORRECT

(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
- Irrelevant, how that money would be used - INCORRECT

(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.
- This may be true but doesn't make the premise for conclusion to hold true - INCORRECT
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://gmatclub.com/forum/a-guide-to-the-official-guide-13-for-gmat-review-134210.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 7

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1703 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2012, 04:53
anordinaryguy wrote:
Conclusions :
Removing Tax rebate on advertise expenses would compel companies to increase the prices of the product.

So any implicit assumption that would contribute in making this conclusion viable would be the right answer

Let's try to explore options :
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
- So conclusion would hold true - CORRECT

(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
- Conclusion may not hold true because companies may stop advertising to save money and in-turn prices will not rise - INCORRECT

(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
- Not directly relevant - INCORRECT

(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
- Irrelevant, how that money would be used - INCORRECT

(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.
- This may be true but doesn't make the premise for conclusion to hold true - INCORRECT

How can you say that C is irrelevant. If people continue to buy products which aren't being advertised, then there isn't any need for these companies to advertise these products and therefore no higher taxes. I am still confused between A and C. Both seem correct to me.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1703 [0], given: 62

Intern
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 4

Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2012, 06:15
siddharthasingh wrote:
anordinaryguy wrote:
Conclusions :
Removing Tax rebate on advertise expenses would compel companies to increase the prices of the product.

So any implicit assumption that would contribute in making this conclusion viable would be the right answer

Let's try to explore options :
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
- So conclusion would hold true - CORRECT

(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
- Conclusion may not hold true because companies may stop advertising to save money and in-turn prices will not rise - INCORRECT

(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
- Not directly relevant - INCORRECT

(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
- Irrelevant, how that money would be used - INCORRECT

(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.
- This may be true but doesn't make the premise for conclusion to hold true - INCORRECT

How can you say that C is irrelevant. If people continue to buy products which aren't being advertised, then there isn't any need for these companies to advertise these products and therefore no higher taxes. I am still confused between A and C. Both seem correct to me.

Refer to the conclusion drawn above. Statement C may be true or be a relevant fact but it is not relevant in reference to conclusion drawn above.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 4

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1703 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2012, 06:49
I guess the conclusion is : they would raise the prices of their products and this increase would raise the prices of their products and this PRICE RISE WOULD DISCOURAGE TOBACCO USE.
Now if the people who buy tobacco, keep on doing so even if the price rises, then this conclusion falls apart.
Let me know if I am missing something.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1703 [0], given: 62

Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 320

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 23

Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V28
GMAT 3: 730 Q50 V38
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2013, 05:43
option C states that people will stop buying tobacco when product is no longer advertised. But there is mention in the statements that company is stopping the ads.

Marcab wrote:
I guess the conclusion is : they would raise the prices of their products and this increase would raise the prices of their products and this PRICE RISE WOULD DISCOURAGE TOBACCO USE.
Now if the people who buy tobacco, keep on doing so even if the price rises, then this conclusion falls apart.
Let me know if I am missing something.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 23

Manager
Status: GMAT Streetfighter!!
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 21

Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Finance
GPA: 3.87
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2013, 19:18
A is the lesser of all the evils IMO.

We assume that the tobacco will pass on the cost to consumers, and not reduce cost or absorb it altogether.

So A is clearly the correct answer.

I was thinking about E for a second though. I looked at E as an implication that the consumer may not purchase the product at a higher price. Higher cost>>Higher price>>Consumer don't buy. But the answer choice does to address the consumer, so I threw it out and went with A.

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 21

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10132

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2016, 23:01
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2014
Posts: 67

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 82

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
GPA: 2.75
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2016, 18:00
Marcab wrote:
anordinaryguy wrote:
Conclusions :
Removing Tax rebate on advertise expenses would compel companies to increase the prices of the product.

So any implicit assumption that would contribute in making this conclusion viable would be the right answer

Let's try to explore options :
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
- So conclusion would hold true - CORRECT

(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
- Conclusion may not hold true because companies may stop advertising to save money and in-turn prices will not rise - INCORRECT

(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
- Not directly relevant - INCORRECT

(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
- Irrelevant, how that money would be used - INCORRECT

(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.
- This may be true but doesn't make the premise for conclusion to hold true - INCORRECT

How can you say that C is irrelevant. If people continue to buy products which aren't being advertised, then there isn't any need for these companies to advertise these products and therefore no higher taxes. I am still confused between A and C. Both seem correct to me.

Option C talks about the case when products are not advertised, but the argument is only concerned about price rise when govt stops permitting rebate related to amount spent in advertising. All the further details mentioned here talks about case when company continue to advertise.

I think because of this reason, option C is irrelevant here.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 82

Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to   [#permalink] 03 Dec 2016, 18:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to

 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®.