GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Jan 2019, 15:44

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 in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
  • The winning strategy for a high GRE score

     January 17, 2019

     January 17, 2019

     08:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     January 19, 2019

     January 19, 2019

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad

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

Hide Tags

 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 118
The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 06 May 2018, 00:02
2
12
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:25) correct 32% (01:40) wrong based on 788 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.

_________________

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

Shikhar


Originally posted by shikhar on 09 May 2012, 09:39.
Last edited by Bunuel on 06 May 2018, 00:02, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
G
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1525
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2012, 23:22
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

Top MBA Admissions Consulting | Top MiM Admissions Consulting

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

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 156
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, International Business
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE: Project Management (Computer Software)
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2012, 08:38
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1111
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2012, 03:53
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.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 18
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2012, 05:15
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.
_________________

Please give kudos if you like my reply!

VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1111
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2012, 05:49
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.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Posts: 311
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V28
GMAT 3: 730 Q50 V38
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2013, 04:43
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.


Image Posted from GMAT ToolKit
Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: GMAT Streetfighter!!
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Posts: 35
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Finance
GPA: 3.87
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2013, 18:18
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 290
Daboo: Sonu
GMAT 1: 590 Q49 V20
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2016, 23:22
1
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

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Apr 2014
Posts: 63
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
GPA: 2.75
Reviews Badge
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Dec 2016, 17:00
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Oct 2016
Posts: 8
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 May 2018, 23:03
Hello,
In this question, in Option C, I feel that Option C is a weakener. If the tobacco companies no longer advertise, then they don't have to pay additional tax, so the prices don't rise and tobacco usage is not discouraged.

Is my Reasoning correct here?

Thanks and Regards
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2018
Posts: 18
Location: India
Schools: ISB '20
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GMAT 2: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 3.9
Reviews Badge
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2018, 13:57
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.


Clear A, the author says that the increase in taxes with directly lead to lesser consumption, assuming that the tobacco company would not offset the increased cost elsewhere.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
Posts: 2
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Dec 2018, 04:01
"subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income". so the tax is based on (revenue-expense), not expense. the company need to pay additional tax is because they paid less than they should( because the advertising expense should not be subtract). does this make sense? please correct my thoughts if i'm wrong
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Dec 2018
Posts: 50
Location: India
GPA: 3.94
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Dec 2018, 00:40
Choice A is the best additional premise because if tobacco companies offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other area. They will no longer increase the price that they offer to regular customer which in turn would not discourage tobacco use. For the plan to be a success, it is mandatory to increase the price of product. Hence, A is the answer.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad &nbs [#permalink] 18 Dec 2018, 00:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract ad

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.