Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 14 Sep 2026, 08:57 |
It is currently 14 Sep 2026, 08:57 |
|
|
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 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 1808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 2107:00 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
03 Jul 2026, 02:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
59% (01:47) correct
41%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 227
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Official: Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened. Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent. Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
03 Jul 2026, 09:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official: Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened. Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent. Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
The official assumes that the higher fines caused the drop in parking violations. But the fine increase happened at the same time a new parking garage opened. The drop may have occurred because drivers had more legal parking available, not because the fines were higher.
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
This is not the flaw. The argument does not confuse cause and effect in that way.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
This is too specific. The official does not need to assume another 50 percent drop. The bigger problem is that the first drop may not have been caused by the fines at all.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
This is irrelevant. The conclusion is about reducing violations, not maximizing fine revenue.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
This is not the main flaw. The issue is not drivers’ preferences, but whether the cause of the decrease was the fine increase or the new parking garage.
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
This is correct. The new parking garage may have provided more legal parking, causing fewer street violations. If so, raising fines again may not reduce violations further. That alternative explanation weakens the official’s causal claim.
Answer: (E)
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
The official assumes that the higher fines caused the drop in parking violations. But the fine increase happened at the same time a new parking garage opened. The drop may have occurred because drivers had more legal parking available, not because the fines were higher.
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
This is not the flaw. The argument does not confuse cause and effect in that way.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
This is too specific. The official does not need to assume another 50 percent drop. The bigger problem is that the first drop may not have been caused by the fines at all.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
This is irrelevant. The conclusion is about reducing violations, not maximizing fine revenue.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
This is not the main flaw. The issue is not drivers’ preferences, but whether the cause of the decrease was the fine increase or the new parking garage.
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
This is correct. The new parking garage may have provided more legal parking, causing fewer street violations. If so, raising fines again may not reduce violations further. That alternative explanation weakens the official’s causal claim.
Answer: (E)
09 Jul 2026, 03:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise 1
Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened.
Premise 2: Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent.
Conclusion: Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again
Two things happened at the same time:
· fines increased
· a new parking garage opened
The official assumes the reduction was caused by higher fines, but maybe it was caused by something else.
This is a classic alternative cause flaw.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
Wrong: Reverse causation doesn’t happen.
It’s like saying:
Sales increased because advertising increased.
Advertising increased because sales increased.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
Wrong: it states “Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again”. the text doesn’t say “will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time”; it just says “if we want there to be even fewer parking violations”.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
Wrong: Money has nothing to do with the reasoning. The conclusion is about reducing violations.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
Wrong: The argument is only about what caused the reduction, not about people’s preferences
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
Correct: Assumption was that the decrease was caused by higher finesand then ignores another plausible cause: the new parking garage.
Six months ago, the fines for parking violations on the city's streets were raised to help pay for the parking garage that had just opened.
Premise 2: Since then, parking violations on our streets have dropped by 50 percent.
Conclusion: Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again
Two things happened at the same time:
· fines increased
· a new parking garage opened
The official assumes the reduction was caused by higher fines, but maybe it was caused by something else.
This is a classic alternative cause flaw.
The reasoning in the official's argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause of that reduction
Wrong: Reverse causation doesn’t happen.
It’s like saying:
Sales increased because advertising increased.
Advertising increased because sales increased.
(B) takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time
Wrong: it states “Hence, if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again”. the text doesn’t say “will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time”; it just says “if we want there to be even fewer parking violations”.
(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines for parking violations
Wrong: Money has nothing to do with the reasoning. The conclusion is about reducing violations.
(D) takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally
Wrong: The argument is only about what caused the reduction, not about people’s preferences
(E) fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces
Correct: Assumption was that the decrease was caused by higher finesand then ignores another plausible cause: the new parking garage.
