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

It is currently 18 Oct 2019, 14:19

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

The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Mar 2019, 09:55
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (02:06) correct 38% (02:21) wrong based on 246 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Children are both shortsighted and financially self-defeating. The 24 percent reduction may well save taxpayers some money in the short run, but it will eventually prove disastrous. What supporters of the cuts have not recognized is that this program has been shown to reduce greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition, a condition that usually results in long-term medical problems that demand expensive medical attention when the child reaches adulthood.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) It is the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children's future medical care.
B) If the proposed cutbacks are not enacted, then an increase in the cost of medical attention will not occur.
C) The taxpayers who support the cutbacks prefer saving money in the short run to saving it in the long run.
D) Those who support the proposed cutbacks have mistakenly placed economics above human needs.
E) A fully-funded Food Assistance Program for Children would eliminate infant malnutrition.

_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Booth Moderator
avatar
G
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 293
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Re: The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Mar 2019, 19:56
It is between A and B.

B is too strongly worded.Hence it is A.

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Sep 2018
Posts: 12
The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2019, 12:03
[quote="CAMANISHPARMAR"]The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Children are both shortsighted and financially self-defeating. The 24 percent reduction may well save taxpayers some money in the short run, but it will eventually prove disastrous. What supporters of the cuts have not recognized is that this program has been shown to reduce greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition, a condition that usually results in long-term medical problems that demand expensive medical attention when the child reaches adulthood.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) It is the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children's future medical care.
B) If the proposed cutbacks are not enacted, then an increase in the cost of medical attention will not occur.
C) The taxpayers who support the cutbacks prefer saving money in the short run to saving it in the long run.
D) Those who support the proposed cutbacks have mistakenly placed economics above human needs.
E) A fully-funded Food Assistance Program for Children would eliminate infant malnutrition.[
PRETHINK:Look for an answer choice which after negating weakens the conclusion "therefore shortsighted and finanacially self defeating"

Negating the answer choices
A.It is not the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children s future medical care. WEAKEN hence answer choice
B.If the proposed cutbacks are enacted then a decrease in the cost will occur. this
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 226
Re: The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2019, 12:34
Imo A

Prethink : conclusion depends on that taxpayer will be paying medical expense of children , hence they will suffer more because of high cost of medical expense

B: is wrong
It does not take into account the effects on taxpayer of the effect of conclusion

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
"Press +1 KUDOS"

Be very critical of my Post
Ask as many questions of my post possible
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Posts: 70
Re: The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Mar 2019, 03:54
1
I would like to go with E
E says Fully funded program would eliminate malnutrition. If we negate - fully funded program would not eliminate malnutrition program then the whole argument of the author fails. There would be no reason for the author to talk against the cutbacks.
_________________
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take..

KUDOS Please..!!
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Jan 2019
Posts: 66
Location: Canada
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.24
Re: The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Mar 2019, 03:28
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Children are both shortsighted and financially self-defeating. The 24 percent reduction may well save taxpayers some money in the short run, but it will eventually prove disastrous. What supporters of the cuts have not recognized is that this program has been shown to reduce greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition, a condition that usually results in long-term medical problems that demand expensive medical attention when the child reaches adulthood.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) It is the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children's future medical care.
B) If the proposed cutbacks are not enacted, then an increase in the cost of medical attention will not occur.
C) The taxpayers who support the cutbacks prefer saving money in the short run to saving it in the long run.
D) Those who support the proposed cutbacks have mistakenly placed economics above human needs.
E) A fully-funded Food Assistance Program for Children would eliminate infant malnutrition.


@e-gmat, please can you explain why A and not C?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2018
Posts: 100
CAT Tests
Re: The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2019, 08:48
SWAT09 wrote:
I would like to go with E
E says Fully funded program would eliminate malnutrition. If we negate - fully funded program would not eliminate malnutrition program then the whole argument of the author fails. There would be no reason for the author to talk against the cutbacks.


"this program has been shown to reduce greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition"

The author has already mentioned that the program has reduced the malnutrition issue. It does not necessarily have to eliminate the problem.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Nov 2018
Posts: 96
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.3
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Apr 2019, 14:31
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Children are both shortsighted and financially self-defeating. The 24 percent reduction may well save taxpayers some money in the short run, but it will eventually prove disastrous. What supporters of the cuts have not recognized is that this program has been shown to reduce greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition, a condition that usually results in long-term medical problems that demand expensive medical attention when the child reaches adulthood.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) It is the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children's future medical care.
B) If the proposed cutbacks are not enacted, then an increase in the cost of medical attention will not occur.
C) The taxpayers who support the cutbacks prefer saving money in the short run to saving it in the long run.
D) Those who support the proposed cutbacks have mistakenly placed economics above human needs.
E) A fully-funded Food Assistance Program for Children would eliminate infant malnutrition.


Why B and E are incorrect? Would anyone explain this elaborately?
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child   [#permalink] 03 Apr 2019, 14:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child

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





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