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.
Sep 0208:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 0301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Aug 2710:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Thought your job leaves no time for GMAT prep? After multiple GMAT attempts and a demanding consulting job, Kshitij improved to 695 in under 2 months. Learn the mindset shifts, study strategy, and execution changes that made the breakthrough possible.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What does test anxiety really look like on the GMAT? For many test takers, it does not look like a panic attack. Instead, it shows up as brain fog, rereading, negative comparisons, mental noise....
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 07
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
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:
41% (02:55) correct
59%
(02:45)
wrong
based on 495
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.
