GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 22 Jan 2020, 19:20

### 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

# Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 912
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2018, 11:50
3
13
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (01:42) correct 59% (01:55) wrong based on 449 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?

(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted

_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 912
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2018, 05:08
5
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?

The big thing about this problem isn't breaking it down into premises/conclusions. The thing to understand is context, similar to that of an SC question. To begin, the question splits into two categories: the "only if" vs "if". Most people catch that the question stem says "only if", pushing people to (A) or (B). This is what LSAT wants you to do; they want you to fall into this trap. As I explain below, watch the context. They want you to reverse a sufficient condition for a necessary condition, which is where most get tripped up in (A)

Diagram: Homelessness problem -- little being done -- ignoring doesn't work -- only if Gov. helps (and leads to taxes) will it go away (this is our conclusion)

Breaking down A and C further:
A: Measure should be adopted ---> Measure is required to solve a problem
C: Measure is required to solve a problem ---> then it should be adopted

(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted -- The measure is taxation. Is taxation required to solve the problem? Nope. Government intervention is required, which will bring taxation. In other words: Only if taxation is required to solve a problem, it should be adopted. Reverses the correct answer.
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted -- This is not our conclusion. This says that if sufficient -- do it.
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted -- This is word for word what we want. If taxation is required to solve a problem, it should be adopted. Bingo
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted -- This says if it is sufficient then we should adopt. That is not what our conclusion is saying, so this is out
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted -- "any steps" is way off, as we only talk about one solution. Beyond this, same issue as D
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 66
GMAT 1: 610 Q46 V28
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2018, 22:18
I went with 'A', how does using of 'Only if' makes it a wrong choice.

Thanks
Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Posts: 6
GPA: 3.41
WE: Account Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2018, 22:49
Sarjaria84 wrote:
I went with 'A', how does using of 'Only if' makes it a wrong choice.

Thanks
Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device

My opinion: ‘only if’ suggests raising tax is the only option necessary to solve the problem, which is not mention by the premise. The premise just mention raising tax as necessary. So whether it is the only or not, we do not need it to be true to make the argurement rasing tax to solve homeless issue to be true.
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2018
Posts: 211
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2018, 23:55
1
Sarjaria84 wrote:
I went with 'A', how does using of 'Only if' makes it a wrong choice.

Thanks
Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device

"Only if" is too extreme. Should avoid extreme options such as only , should , must , all etc if a better one is available
Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Posts: 15
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V34
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2018, 00:03
Why not E?

Tax was a measure necessitated for providing homes to homeless.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 66
GMAT 1: 610 Q46 V28
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2018, 00:06
pandeyashwin wrote:
Sarjaria84 wrote:
I went with 'A', how does using of 'Only if' makes it a wrong choice.

Thanks
Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device

"Only if" is too extreme. Should avoid extreme options such as only , should , must , all etc if a better one is available

Went with 'only if' because the argument also had that conditionality, so thought the answer should go with that.

Thanks
Saurabh
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2018
Posts: 96
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V38
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2018, 04:31
1
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?

(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted

The stimulus states that homelessness is a problem and the government needs to step in and this will make the problem disappear.
The answer choices use the terms measure and problem - let's be clear which is what in order to avoid confusion.
Measure - Government Intervention
Problem - Homelessness

Now when we can go by POE -
A states the opposite of the stimulus. The government intervenes because there is homelessness and it is required to solve a problem.
Similarly we can eliminate B.
Coming to D - this cannot be inferred from the stimulus. Nowhere are we told if a measure is sufficient we should necessarily adopt it, rather govt intervention is required to make homelessness disappear. Re-read this part of the stimulus
Quote:
ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.

Option E is too far-fetched. Any steps needed should be adopted makes the option a little extreme.
Option C is much better than E and can be inferred from the stimulus.

Hope its clear.
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2018, 08:12

Posted from my mobile device
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 912
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2018, 08:28
vicky789,

Please see my explanation above. If that is still not sufficient for you, feel free to PM me your concerns.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2018
Posts: 3
Location: India
Schools: ISB '20 (A)
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2018, 07:19
Hi,
I'm not able to understand which measure are they talking about? the government stepping in or increasing tax? Please explain
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10004
Location: Pune, India
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2018, 00:22
3
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?

(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted

Premises:
Homelessness is a problem.
The problem will go away only if the govt steps in to provide houses.
For Govt to provide housing, taxes need to be increased.

Conclusion: So we should raise taxes.

The measure being talked about is raising taxes. That is what is under discussion (whether it should be adopted or not).

The premises tell us that taxes NEED to be increased to provide housing. So one part of our choice is clear - "a measure is required" (not sufficient). The premises tell us that increase in taxes is required.
Now the choice is between "Only if" and "If".
The premises do not say that one should not raise taxes otherwise. It does not say that we should raise taxes only if it is required to solve the problem. The premises tell us that if it is necessary to raise taxes to solve this problem, we should raise taxes.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Posts: 113
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2018, 18:18
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?

(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted

Premises:
Homelessness is a problem.
The problem will go away only if the govt steps in to provide houses.
For Govt to provide housing, taxes need to be increased.

Conclusion: So we should raise taxes.

The measure being talked about is raising taxes. That is what is under discussion (whether it should be adopted or not).

The premises tell us that taxes NEED to be increased to provide housing. So one part of our choice is clear - "a measure is required" (not sufficient). The premises tell us that increase in taxes is required.
Now the choice is between "Only if" and "If".
The premises do not say that one should not raise taxes otherwise. It does not say that we should raise taxes only if it is required to solve the problem. The premises tell us that if it is necessary to raise taxes to solve this problem, we should raise taxes.

I liked the explanation but I have a a reasoning to defend E.

Homelessness- Problem
Measure - Provide Homes
Steps - Increase tax

Why is E not the answer.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10004
Location: Pune, India
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2018, 05:15
2
AKY13 wrote:
Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there seems to be little agreement on how to solve it. One thing, however, is clear: ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear, and this necessitates increased taxation. For this reason, we should raise taxes.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most supports the politician's argument?

(A) Only if a measure is required to solve a problem should it be adopted
(B) Only if a measure is sufficient to solve a problem should it be adopted
(C) If a measure is required to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(D) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, then it should be adopted
(E) If a measure is sufficient to solve a problem, any steps necessitated by that measure should be adopted

Premises:
Homelessness is a problem.
The problem will go away only if the govt steps in to provide houses.
For Govt to provide housing, taxes need to be increased.

Conclusion: So we should raise taxes.

The measure being talked about is raising taxes. That is what is under discussion (whether it should be adopted or not).

The premises tell us that taxes NEED to be increased to provide housing. So one part of our choice is clear - "a measure is required" (not sufficient). The premises tell us that increase in taxes is required.
Now the choice is between "Only if" and "If".
The premises do not say that one should not raise taxes otherwise. It does not say that we should raise taxes only if it is required to solve the problem. The premises tell us that if it is necessary to raise taxes to solve this problem, we should raise taxes.

I liked the explanation but I have a a reasoning to defend E.

Homelessness- Problem
Measure - Provide Homes
Steps - Increase tax

I am fine with this but I still have a problem with "sufficient" condition.

"Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing"

Only if implies a NECESSARY condition, not sufficient. So the argument says that the measure (as you defined it) is necessary to solve the problem. Hence the principle will still be "If a measure is necessary to solve a problem ..."
So (E) is not correct.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8131
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2019, 21:50
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.
Re: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a problem, yet there   [#permalink] 10 Dec 2019, 21:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by