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

 It is currently 24 May 2020, 15:14

### 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

# Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 64068
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2020, 04:52
1
1
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:48) correct 20% (02:00) wrong based on 315 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employees free parking spaces as a tax-free benefit, but they can offer employees only up to \$180 per year as a tax-free benefit for using mass transit. The government could significantly increase mass transit ridership by raising the limit of this benefit to meet commuters’ transportation costs.

The proposal above to increase mass transit ridership assumes that

(A) current mass transit systems are subject to unexpected route closings and delays

(B) using mass transit creates less air pollution per person than using a private automobile

(C) the parking spaces offered by employers as tax-free benefits can be worth as much as \$2,500 per year

(D) many employees are deterred by financial considerations from using mass transit to commute to their places of employment

(E) because of traffic congestion on major commuter routes, it is often faster to travel to one’s place of employment by means of mass transit than by private automobile

_________________
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2061
Re: Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2020, 04:08
1
A bit of a strange question, because no answer should be even tempting besides D. The question is solely about financial incentives to use different types of transportation, so the stem is clearly assuming those incentives affect employee behaviour. So D is the right answer. Pollution is irrelevant to the argument, as is the speed of driving and the speed of public transit. C at least discusses financial incentives, but it is too specific to ever be an assumption: we don't need to assume that parking costs specifically \$2500 to make this argument. Since we could change that number to, say, \$10,000, and answer C would convey the same information, it can't possibly be an assumption, because assumptions are required to be true as is; they can't be changed.
_________________
GMAT Tutor in Montreal

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com
VP
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 1161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
WE: Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2020, 19:34
Bunuel wrote:
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employees free parking spaces as a tax-free benefit, but they can offer employees only up to \$180 per year as a tax-free benefit for using mass transit. The government could significantly increase mass transit ridership by raising the limit of this benefit to meet commuters’ transportation costs.

The proposal above to increase mass transit ridership assumes that

(A) current mass transit systems are subject to unexpected route closings and delays

(B) using mass transit creates less air pollution per person than using a private automobile

(C) the parking spaces offered by employers as tax-free benefits can be worth as much as \$2,500 per year

(D) many employees are deterred by financial considerations from using mass transit to commute to their places of employment

(E) because of traffic congestion on major commuter routes, it is often faster to travel to one’s place of employment by means of mass transit than by private automobile

One assumption can be that people, given an opportunity, would likely be interested in opting for mass transit system. If they are not then proposal fails.
Here option D is somewhat talking about financial constraints of employees. There are many factors within this option but this much of information in D works.

_________________
Ephemeral Epiphany..!

GMATPREP1 590(Q48,V23) March 6, 2019
GMATPREP2 610(Q44,V29) June 10, 2019
GMATPREPSoft1 680(Q48,V35) June 26, 2019
VP
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 1161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
WE: Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2020, 01:03
1
Prashantsharma wrote:
Why no option E

Posted from my mobile device

Because in argument everything revolves around cost aspects and nothing else. So, straightforward its D.
E, on the other hand, is something of an ideal condition in real life but that is not an assumption for the argument here.
_________________
Ephemeral Epiphany..!

GMATPREP1 590(Q48,V23) March 6, 2019
GMATPREP2 610(Q44,V29) June 10, 2019
GMATPREPSoft1 680(Q48,V35) June 26, 2019
Intern
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2020, 00:28
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employees free parking spaces as a tax-free benefit, but they can offer employees only up to \$180 per year as a tax-free benefit for using mass transit. The government could significantly increase mass transit ridership by raising the limit of this benefit to meet commuters??? transportation costs.

The proposal above to increase mass transit ridership assumes that

(A) current mass transit systems are subject to unexpected route closings and delays

(B) using mass transit creates less air pollution per person than using a private automobile

(C) the parking spaces offered by employers as tax-free benefits can be worth as much as \$2,500 per year

(D) many employees are deterred by financial considerations from using mass transit to commute to their places of employment

(E) because of traffic congestion on major commuter routes, it is often faster to travel to one???s place of employment by means of mass transit than by private automobile

I can't explain myself why D is the answer!
Tutor
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 709
Re: Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2020, 09:00
2
Tafannum wrote:
I can't explain myself why D is the answer!

Hello, Tafannum. This is a standard assumption question, so we need to find a necessary condition that would tie into the logic of the proposal. What does the passage lay out for us?

Bunuel wrote:
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employees free parking spaces as a tax-free benefit, but they can offer employees only up to \$180 per year as a tax-free benefit for using mass transit. The government could significantly increase mass transit ridership by raising the limit of this benefit to meet commuters’ transportation costs.

Sentence 1 broaches the topic at the heart of the matter. We see that there are two possibilities for employers to offer employees something related to transportation as a tax-free benefit to the employer. The first option is free parking spaces; the second is up to \$180 per year... for using mass transit.

Sentence 2 gives us a projection that more employees would use mass transit if the government would raise the \$180-per-year mass transit credit, since, presumably, commuters' transportation costs exceed that amount.

The assumption must have a firm grounding in the passage, so let us see what the answers have in store.

Bunuel wrote:
(A) current mass transit systems are subject to unexpected route closings and delays

We have to assume such problems for the proposal to make sense? Why would anyone want to take mass transit if it were so unreliable? Remember, the passage tells us that the government could significantly increase mass transit ridership. This answer choice provides a reason why people might not want to use it. There is no logic to connect this choice to anything presented in the passage.

Bunuel wrote:
(B) using mass transit creates less air pollution per person than using a private automobile

Be that as it may, air pollution is not a concern for us. Remember, we have to find a missing piece of information that would necessarily allow the proposal to seem reasonable. The passage does not indicate anything about pollution, so it does not need to draw a comparison about pollution between different modes of transportation.

Bunuel wrote:
(C) the parking spaces offered by employers as tax-free benefits can be worth as much as \$2,500 per year

Wow, really? The proposal has to assume that these parking spaces could be worth up to that exact figure? If that makes sense to you, then you must be clairvoyant. Although the information here is loosely tied to the passage, it is in no way required for us to see how the proposal about increasing mass transit ridership could be sensible.

Bunuel wrote:
(D) many employees are deterred by financial considerations from using mass transit to commute to their places of employment

This makes perfect sense. I know it may seem like a small thing, but notice the many. Since the rationale is that, again, the government could significantly increase mass transit ridership by..., there have to be many employees hanging in the balance, or, in other words, the decision has to affect a lot of people. If many workers currently drive because they feel it is too expensive to use mass transit, then the proposal would indeed have firm grounding: a lot of people would stand to gain if their employers could cover the cost of using mass transit, since the government would have increased the amount of tax-free benefits it provided such employers. This is our answer.

Bunuel wrote:
(E) because of traffic congestion on major commuter routes, it is often faster to travel to one’s place of employment by means of mass transit than by private automobile

This is a nice distraction, but nothing more. You might reason that more people would ride mass transit if the government were to provide increased benefits to employers to pass on to employees, but there is a piece missing. This answer choice has nothing to do with money, but with speed instead. Since the passage does not concern itself with commute times one way or the other, this cannot be the necessary assumption we seek.

I hope that helps answer your question. If not, I would be happy to discuss the matter further. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
Intern
Joined: 08 Jul 2019
Posts: 32
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 620 Q46 V38
GPA: 3.51
WE: General Management (Computer Software)
Re: Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2020, 09:39
1
after reading the question ,we can predict assumption must be related to money.
only option d matches
Re: Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer their employ   [#permalink] 29 Mar 2020, 09:39