If the city builds the proposed convention center, several national pr

Question

If the city builds the proposed convention center, several national professional organizations will hold conventions there. And if several large conventions are held in the city, the total number of visitors will of course increase. Tax revenues will certainly increase if the number of visitors increases. Thus, building the convention center will increase the city's tax revenues.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) If the number of visitors to the city does not increase, then the city's tax revenues will not increase. 
(B) If the number of visitors to the city increases, then the amount of money spent by visitors will increase. 
(C) The city's tax revenues will not increase unless the convention center is built. 
(D) People who are now regular visitors to the city will continue to visit the city if the new convention center is built. 
(E) If several national professional organizations hold their conventions in the convention center, those conventions will be large.

Mavisdu1017 · Accepted Answer

I went wrong, but I found some explanation in another forum:

This question plays a trick. The first sentence says that a convention center will lead to more conventions. But the second sentence says that large conventions are what lead to visitors.

Large conventions and conventions are not the same thing; conventions can be small. This is the gap in the argument. The right answer, E, fills the gap by saying that the new conventions will be large.

___________

A. We already knew that visitors lead to more tax revenue. This answer says that only visitors will lead to tax revenue. That’s useless.
B. This doesn’t help. The question is only about tax revenues, not money spent. We already know that visitors lead to tax revenue. It doesn’t matter how they lead to tax revenue.
C. This answer doesn’t prove anything. It says other methods of raising taxes won’t work, but that doesn’t prove that a convention center will work.
D. This is irrelevant. The stimulus already said visitors will increase if there are large conventions. That fact is not in doubt, and it doesn’t need the support of this answer. This doesn’t help connect convention centers to large conventions or tax revenue.
E. CORRECT. This shows why you should read all the answers before committing to any. Once E points out the difference between conventions and large conventions, it may seem obvious. But you won’t know that until you look at it. So don’t waste 30 seconds thinking at A if you haven’t looked at E yet.

100mitra · Answer

The correct answer choice is (E).

Explanation by Powerscore
The argument presents several conditional claims with no qualifiers - no element of probability, just absolute certainty.
The author is completely certain, based on these conditional claims, that "building the convention center will increase the city’s tax revenues"(the last sentence).
The stem asks us to justify (prove) this conclusion, which means despite how certain the author sounded, there must be something missing from his argument, something which when we supply it will complete the conditional chain and guarantee the truth of the final sentence.

The conditional premises are as follows:

BCC (Build Convention Center)
SNOC (Several National Organization Conventions)
SLC (Several Large Conventions)
VI (Visitors Increase)
TRI (Tax Revenues Increase)

The conclusion is:
BCC >> TRI

At this point we should notice that there is a slight shift between the first and second premises, from SNOC to SLC, and that is the gap which, once we close it, will get us all the way from the first sufficient condition to the final necessary condition. 
Our prephrase must be along the lines of "if there are national organization conventions, they will be large."

Answer choice (A) : VI>>TRI, the negation of the final premise, does not connect the conditions in our chain and does not match our prephrase. Loser.

Answer choice (B) : VI >> MSVI (money spent by visitors increases) brings up a new condition and does not connect the building of the convention center to increased tax revenues, the conclusion we are seeking to justify.

Answer choice (C) : TRI>>BCC is a reversal of the conclusion, which does nothing. A contrapositive would have done the job, but this is not that.

Answer choice (D) : BCC>>>RVC (regular visitors continue) brings up a new condition and does not connect the building of the convention center to increased tax revenues.

Answer choice (E) : This is the correct answer choice. SNOC>>>SLC closes the gap and matches our prephrase perfectly. We now have this complete conditional chain:

BCC>>>>SNOC>>>SLC>>>>VI>>>>TRI, and 
it must be true that BCC>>>TRI

Posted from my mobile device

Shadyshades · Answer

I just couldn't believe someone is testing me on such a concept. Of course, I blundered it

Johnny1989 · Answer

Hello experts,

Can't this question be considered as cause and effect question? please explain. Also, what is the contrapositive of the conclusion.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

It's not really a cause-and-effect question even though it does involve causes and effects since the logic supporting the correct answer doesn't involve any determination of whether one thing causes another.

Neurogenesis · Answer

The argument:

If    the city builds the proposed convention center (will it happen?)=> several org will hold conventions there (Are they large?) =>  If several large conventions are held  => the total number of visitors will increase => tax revenues will increase. 
 
Conclusion: Building the convention center will increase the city’s tax revenues.

Pre-thinking:

The (hypothetical) conclusion is based on the hypothesis that the center will be built. It is therefore not a hidden/missing assumption. 
 While we know that “several” org will hold (several) conventions, there is a doubt as to whether they will be large.
 
 Note that “IF” (hypothesis) such conventions are numerous and large, then the number of visitors will increase and consequently tax revenues will increase.

With that in mind, let us check what the options offers.

(A) If the number of visitors to the city does not increase, then the city's tax revenues will not increase. 
 We know as per premises that: Tax revenues will certainly increase if the number of visitors increases. 
 The increase in visitors is not necessarily a required condition for the effect (increase in tax revenues). This is just one condition enabling the effect. If it does not happen, the tax revenues could still increase by other means used by the city. We do not know or care. This does not help infer our conclusion and is therefore not our assumption. OUT

(B) If the number of visitors to the city increases, then the amount of money spent by visitors will increase. 
 We know as per premises that: Tax revenues will certainly increase if the number of visitors increases.  
 How tax revenues will increase is irrelevant. Note that the mere increase in visitors could increase the total spent without the amount spent by visitors increasing. They all pay the same low amount, but there are more visitors. OUT

(C) The city's tax revenues will not increase unless the convention center is built. 
 As specified above, the conclusion relies on the center being built. This is a hypothetical conclusion which already includes such hard premise. What happens in case the center is not built is not our concern.  
 Could tax revenues increase by other means used by the city? Sure, but it is out of scope. 
 
Negate it=> The city's tax revenues will increase even if the convention center is not built. 
 It could still be true that building the center will increase tax revenues. The conclusion holds. OUT

(D) People who are now regular visitors to the city will continue to visit the city if the new convention center is built. 
 What if all the regular visitors are upset and stop visiting the city (negation), but there are so many new visitors attracted by the center, that the total number of visitors increases. In such case, building the center will still increase the tax revenues. The argument does not rely on regular visitors continuing to visit the city. OUT

(E) If several national professional organizations hold their conventions in the convention center, those conventions will be large. 
 This solves the gap in the argument. While we know as per premises, that several org will hold conventions there, we have no idea about their size. Now we add that such conventions will be large (missing premise).
 
 => If several  large  conventions are held, then the number of visitors will increase and consequently tax revenues will increase. CORRECT

I hope it helps

If the city builds the proposed convention center, several national pr

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

If the city builds the proposed convention center, several national pr

Prep Toolkit

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