Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jun 0308:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 7 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we are rounding up the oddballs, the misfits, and the format-benders: EXCEPT, Fill-In-The-Blanks, and other unusual Critical Reasoning question types. When you see a question that ends with a literal blank line
Jun 0401:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
May 2910:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
Jun 0312:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.- Jun 04
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
For most test takers, Data Insights is the most challenging section on the GMAT, with test takers scoring several points lower on average on DI than on Quant or Verbal and completing the section with less time to spare. 
Jun 0803:00 PM PDT
-04:00 PM PDT
15 Full-length GMAT FE mocks with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!- Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
13 Apr 2020, 06:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
42% (02:54) correct
58%
(02:46)
wrong
based on 460
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. Since the province’s budget is required to be in balance, either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed. So either the province’s taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 million to spend, but there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy.
The conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the
(A) taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them
(B) taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum
(C) province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers
(D) province could instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province
(E) province could keep its workers and use them more effectively with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures
The conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the
(A) taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them
(B) taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum
(C) province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers
(D) province could instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province
(E) province could keep its workers and use them more effectively with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures
29 Apr 2020, 19:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Allow me to solve this :
The paragraph's crux is a dilemma:
whether to refund the money if yes how to avoid angering people who could be angered by Increased taxes , or loss of jobs. The questions asks the reader a question on how to ensure that the dilemma is resolved.
A) The dilemma is still maintained since we dont know whether 300 million would be enough or not. Ofcourse 600 million spending is better bit is 300 million enough??
B) Not sure whether the spending will increase.
C) Yes, could be a contender.
D) Will it ensure stinulation of economy? Not sure
E) This could be a possible solution. Increase employment, increase savings and return the 600 million to people. Win-Win.
Updated on: 16 Jun 2022, 04:52
Originally posted by GmatKnightTutor on 01 May 2020, 01:55.
Last edited by GmatKnightTutor on 16 Jun 2022, 04:52, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by GmatKnightTutor on 16 Jun 2022, 04:52, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Same passage different question - https://gmatclub.com/forum/party-spokes ... l#p2509372 - so let's dive in what that same understanding of the passage. We return to a situation that says that there is no point saying that we will spend 600 mn more in the economy. Since it will either be spent by the public or the public workers. If one gets it the other doesn't and pays the price either in taxes or by being fired.
Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. Since the province’s budget is required to be in balance, either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed. So either the province’s taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 million to spend, but there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy.
The conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the
(A) taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them
Nope. This would mean a net decrease in internal economy spending. Also it doesn't change the core point about the 600 million spending being EXTRA.
(B) taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum
Irrelevant.
(C) province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers
Irrelevant.
(D) province could instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province
We are trying to see if the equation about the 600 million changes. Does TOTAL spending change because of this statement? Nope.
(E) province could keep its workers and use them more effectively with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures
This says that we will effectively save 600 million more. This changes the entire equation. Think of it like a penny saved is a penny earned. There are no job losses here and we still get 600 million saved due to their efficiency.
Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. Since the province’s budget is required to be in balance, either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed. So either the province’s taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 million to spend, but there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy.
The conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the
(A) taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them
Nope. This would mean a net decrease in internal economy spending. Also it doesn't change the core point about the 600 million spending being EXTRA.
(B) taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum
Irrelevant.
(C) province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers
Irrelevant.
(D) province could instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province
We are trying to see if the equation about the 600 million changes. Does TOTAL spending change because of this statement? Nope.
(E) province could keep its workers and use them more effectively with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures
This says that we will effectively save 600 million more. This changes the entire equation. Think of it like a penny saved is a penny earned. There are no job losses here and we still get 600 million saved due to their efficiency.
