Last visit was: 24 Apr 2025, 18:15 It is currently 24 Apr 2025, 18:15
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
555-605 Level|   Weaken|                           
User avatar
BillyZ
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Last visit: 20 Oct 2024
Posts: 1,148
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Products:
19
Kudos
Add Kudos
151
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
ScottTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 20,627
Own Kudos:
25,653
 [64]
Given Kudos: 292
Status:Founder & CEO
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Location: United States (CA)
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 20,627
Kudos: 25,653
 [64]
48
Kudos
Add Kudos
16
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Kurtosis
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2021
Posts: 1,413
Own Kudos:
4,892
 [12]
Given Kudos: 1,228
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 1,413
Kudos: 4,892
 [12]
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
arvind910619
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Last visit: 18 Oct 2024
Posts: 852
Own Kudos:
592
 [2]
Given Kudos: 755
Status:Learning
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Products:
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
Posts: 852
Kudos: 592
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hazelnut
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people. Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the urban planner's argument?

(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
(B) Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.
(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.
(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.
(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.
Premise 1: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.
Premise 2: This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people.
Premise 3: Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem.

Conclusion: Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.

Assumption : It is assuming that the city will continue to remain good and therefore taxes should not be increased .

Now lets get on with our answer
If suppose the taxes are not increased then the infrastructure of the city will become abysmal and no new population would want to come to the city to live .
So the taxes has to be increased
Only A can be deduced from the argument .


Option C is a trap as it is a consequence of increasing the tax
es­
avatar
kartzcool
Joined: 26 Feb 2017
Last visit: 27 Mar 2018
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 71
Posts: 10
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Even i had selected option 'b' as answer. Someone please tell me why is option 'b' incorrect.
avatar
hassu13
Joined: 11 Sep 2017
Last visit: 24 Jul 2021
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 82
Schools: IMD '21
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Schools: IMD '21
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 30
Kudos: 36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Can you pl clarify that how choice c is not a valid weakened.

The qstn stem says that when sufficient money for infrastructure is not their the government increases the tax amount. This increase in tax amount results in cascading effect which in turn results in more people leaving the town because of tax increases.
In option c, if the amount allocated for maintenance of city infrastructure is increased then the amount should be sufficient and the cascading effect can be stopped.
Since cascading effect has stopped hence people would prefer to stay with marginal tax increase.
Can someone please help how this option is incorrect

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 7,282
Own Kudos:
67,612
 [9]
Given Kudos: 1,919
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,282
Kudos: 67,612
 [9]
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hassu13
GMATNinja
Can you pl clarify that how choice c is not a valid weakened.

The qstn stem says that when sufficient money for infrastructure is not their the government increases the tax amount. This increase in tax amount results in cascading effect which in turn results in more people leaving the town because of tax increases.
In option c, if the amount allocated for maintenance of city infrastructure is increased then the amount should be sufficient and the cascading effect can be stopped.
Since cascading effect has stopped hence people would prefer to stay with marginal tax increase.
Can someone please help how this option is incorrect

Posted from my mobile device
Quote:
(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.
Choice (C) does solve the infrastructure funding problem... but only temporarily.

Implementing the solution suggested in choice (C) gives us adequate infrastructure funding momentarily, but it also requires raising property taxes. We know that "rising property taxes... drive more residents away." So even a small increase in property taxes, as suggested in choice (C), could drive residents away. That would in turn decrease the funding available for infrastructure and cause us to raise taxes once again. That could cause even MORE residents to leave, causing us to raise taxes again, and so on and so on.

hassu13
Since cascading effect has stopped hence people would prefer to stay with marginal tax increase.
Since we are specifically told that rising property taxes drive residents away, we cannot assume that they will decide to stay when there is a small property tax increase. On the contrary, based on the given information, it is more likely that even a small increase would drive some residents away, further compounding the problem.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
gmatman1031
Joined: 27 Nov 2018
Last visit: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 42
Own Kudos:
36
 [4]
Given Kudos: 204
Posts: 42
Kudos: 36
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I thought (D) was an attractive answer when I first attempted this problem. However, after looking back over this problem, I think (D) actually strengthens the argument. If people are moving to a region that includes Stonebridge, then there are two possibilities. (1) Some people that move to that region move to Stonebridge and thus, our problem starts to resolve. Or (2), nobody that moves to that region moves to Stonebridge and thus, you would want to keep taxes low to try to attract those people to Stonebridge.

I didn't like (A) because it didn't solve the problem of an infinite loop of people leaving and property taxes increasing. I guess I was looking for an option that would solve that; though unfortunately, there are none. Even though (A) doesn't solve this infinite loop issue, it definitely weakens the argument. It doesn't shatter the argument and it really doesn't weaken it that much in my opinion. With (A), if you raise taxes you'd have a runaway effect, and if you refrained you'd also have a runaway effect! But it is a point that counts against the conclusion, and it's the only option that raises a point against the conclusion.

Thus, (A) is the correct answer.
User avatar
09173140521
Joined: 09 May 2017
Last visit: 09 Oct 2022
Posts: 176
Own Kudos:
354
 [1]
Given Kudos: 779
Location: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
GMAT 1: 430 Q39 V12
GMAT 1: 430 Q39 V12
Posts: 176
Kudos: 354
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION=
A. Correct. This suggests that refraining from raising property taxes could drive
more residents out of Stonebridge than raising them would, and thus would not
help the city avoid the problem the urban planner describes.
B. This does slightly weaken the argument because the grants may still be provided
to maintain certain parts of the infrastructure, even if increased property taxes
drive more residents away. But losing more residents could still make it harder to
raise enough funds to maintain the rest of the city’s infrastructure, as the urban
planner argues.
C. Even if this approach would address the immediate maintenance funding
problem, the small increase in property taxes could still drive more residents
away, forcing additional future tax increases on those who remain, just as the
urban planner suggests.
D. This does slightly weaken the argument, but the residents who will move to the
region might still avoid moving to Stonebridge if the property taxes there are too
high, and those who live in Stonebridge might still move to other cities in the
region.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 15,908
Own Kudos:
72,791
 [11]
Given Kudos: 463
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,908
Kudos: 72,791
 [11]
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hazelnut
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people. Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the urban planner's argument?

(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.

(B) Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.

(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.

(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.

(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.

- When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. (to maintain the infrastructure).
- Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem.
- The city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population

Conclusion: The city government should refrain from raising property taxes. (Raising taxes will make more people leave)

What will weaken the conclusion?

(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.

This tells us that if taxes are not raised, it will make the city much less attractive to live in. So people will leave as infra decays. Hence, this says that not raising taxes may not be the right approach. We may not be able to avoid the problem by not raising taxes. Hence, it makes us doubt our conclusion.

(B) Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.

This doesn't say that raising taxes is required. It gets grants from the Govt. The Govt may keep giving those grants. Not raising taxes does not mean that those grants will stop. It doesn't say what the impact of not raising taxes will be.

(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.

We don't know the impact of "small increase in taxes". Also, we don't know the impact of not being able to maintain infra.

(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.

We are talking about a region that is included in Stonebridge. We don't know for what percentage of population it accounts.

(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.

We cannot compare Stonebridge with "larger cities".

Answer (A)­
User avatar
adkikani
User avatar
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Last visit: 24 Dec 2023
Posts: 1,239
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Posts: 1,239
Kudos: 1,306
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring

I have trouble spotting main conclusion when there are more than 1 premise markers. Can you help if below approach for spotting conclusion and selecting (A) is correct?

Quote:
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people.
This is because: A premise marker
Conclusion: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.

Quote:
Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem.
Do you agree that this is circular reasoning?
E.g. My song was better than best since it was the best.
But I am not providing correct evidences here:
1. Was my song in tune with the music?
2. Did an audience poll back my singing?
3. Were the criteria wide which a judge would select a winner were fulfilled by me?

Quote:
Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.
Premise marker: Since
Conclusion marker: Therefore
Conclusion: the city government should refrain from raising property taxes.

Now I am in soup since I have two conclusions. To identify main conclusion, I forcefully use because before the statement that I suspect is main conclusion.
So here we go:
Quote:
the city government should refrain from raising property taxes because when a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.
Sounds OK to me, I will keep it.
Quote:
when a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise because the city government should refrain from raising property taxes
That's absurd. There is no proper link to connect both statements. OUT

Also I could recognize that this is a causal statement.
Cause: city is starting to loose population
Effect: so, do not increase property taxes.

One way to weaken it: If effect occurs, but cause does not occur

Quote:
(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
Effect: Property taxes not raised.
Cause: City shall still loose population. But what I want is that city should not loose population. So this weakens the claim.

I feel like I made a mess to implement above learning from Powerscore CR bible and not sure if I can mess enough head under exam condition with above approach.
Let me know where I faltered.
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,503
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,503
Kudos: 7,258
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adkikani
VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring

I have trouble spotting main conclusion when there are more than 1 premise markers. Can you help if below approach for spotting conclusion and selecting (A) is correct?
Hello again, adkikani. I agree with most of your approach below. Where I do not agree, I will write a few points.

adkikani
Quote:
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people.
This is because: A premise marker
Conclusion: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.

Quote:
Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem.
Do you agree that this is circular reasoning?
E.g. My song was better than best since it was the best.
But I am not providing correct evidences here:
1. Was my song in tune with the music?
2. Did an audience poll back my singing?
3. Were the criteria wide which a judge would select a winner were fulfilled by me?
No, I would not say that this line from the passage exemplifies circular reasoning. Rather, it outlines a snowball effect. An issue occurs and leads to a bigger and bigger problem. In other words, rising property taxes will drive even more residents away, thereby making the infrastructure collapse even worse. This downward spiral could continue until some major change were implemented. Your example above differs in that it does illustrate circular reasoning, rather than a snowball effect.

adkikani
Quote:
Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.
Premise marker: Since
Conclusion marker: Therefore
Conclusion: the city government should refrain from raising property taxes.

Now I am in soup since I have two conclusions. To identify main conclusion, I forcefully use because before the statement that I suspect is main conclusion.
So here we go:
Quote:
the city government should refrain from raising property taxes because when a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.
Sounds OK to me, I will keep it.
Quote:
when a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise because the city government should refrain from raising property taxes
That's absurd. There is no proper link to connect both statements. OUT

Also I could recognize that this is a causal statement.
Cause: city is starting to loose population
Effect: so, do not increase property taxes.
A small point, but your Effect here is a proposal instead. The effect is, ultimately, the compounding problem that you dismissed earlier. If the city loses its population, property taxes tend to rise, driving more residents away, leaving those who stay behind to shoulder a heavier tax burden, and the area becomes much less desirable to live in all the while.

adkikani
One way to weaken it: If effect occurs, but cause does not occur

Quote:
(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
Effect: Property taxes not raised.
Cause: City shall still loose population. But what I want is that city should not loose population. So this weakens the claim.

I feel like I made a mess to implement above learning from Powerscore CR bible and not sure if I can mess enough head under exam condition with above approach.
Let me know where I faltered.
If the main conclusion is the city government should refrain from raising property taxes, then you have to find a compelling reason for the government to do just the opposite and raise those taxes without that leading to the snowball effect outlined above. As soon as I read choice (A), I thought I would have a hard time disproving it, because it achieves just what we are looking for: the city needs to raise taxes to make the area a more desirable place to live. If more people move into the city because it is a more desirable location, then the infrastructure problem is solved and, more importantly, we have our answer. Choices (B), (D), and (E) do not even address the tax issue, so they are easy to toss aside. As for (C), it outlines a plan that might work for shoring up the infrastructure for the time being, but there is no positive outlook for anything other than the immediate future, and the compounding problem could ultimately bury the city.

I hope that helps. As much as possible, look to keep your approach simple. I think sometimes you do way more work than you need to and get tangled up in the process.

- Andrew
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 15,908
Own Kudos:
72,791
 [1]
Given Kudos: 463
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,908
Kudos: 72,791
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adkikani
VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring

I have trouble spotting main conclusion when there are more than 1 premise markers. Can you help if below approach for spotting conclusion and selecting (A) is correct?

Quote:
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people.
This is because: A premise marker
Conclusion: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.

Quote:
Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem.
Do you agree that this is circular reasoning?
E.g. My song was better than best since it was the best.
But I am not providing correct evidences here:
1. Was my song in tune with the music?
2. Did an audience poll back my singing?
3. Were the criteria wide which a judge would select a winner were fulfilled by me?

Quote:
Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.
Premise marker: Since
Conclusion marker: Therefore
Conclusion: the city government should refrain from raising property taxes.

Now I am in soup since I have two conclusions. To identify main conclusion, I forcefully use because before the statement that I suspect is main conclusion.
So here we go:
Quote:
the city government should refrain from raising property taxes because when a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.
Sounds OK to me, I will keep it.
Quote:
when a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise because the city government should refrain from raising property taxes
That's absurd. There is no proper link to connect both statements. OUT

Also I could recognize that this is a causal statement.
Cause: city is starting to loose population
Effect: so, do not increase property taxes.

One way to weaken it: If effect occurs, but cause does not occur

Quote:
(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
Effect: Property taxes not raised.
Cause: City shall still loose population. But what I want is that city should not loose population. So this weakens the claim.

I feel like I made a mess to implement above learning from Powerscore CR bible and not sure if I can mess enough head under exam condition with above approach.
Let me know where I faltered.

By focusing on markers, you are losing sight of the argument as a whole. Markers only INDICATE the roles played by various sentences. You must keep the entire argument in mind while deciding what role is played by each sentence.

Two premise markers does not mean two conclusions.
This argument has only one conclusion - Stonebridge government should refrain from raising property taxes.
This conclusion is the reason the author writes the argument. He wants to tell his readers his opinion - that Stonebridge govt should not raise taxes. He gives reasons by starting off by giving a general trend (When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.) Then he tells us why we see this trend (it's a vicious circle: people leave -> higher taxes, higher taxes -> more people leave).
And that is why, he says, we should not increase taxes in Stonebridge (the conclusion).
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 4,576
Own Kudos:
32,114
 [1]
Given Kudos: 679
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,576
Kudos: 32,114
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Passage analysis


Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise.

According to an urban planner:
If people migrate from a city, such that it causes a reduction in population, the property taxes in that city show an increase.


This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people.


This happens because after the population decreases due to migration, there are fewer people left to pay for the maintenance of the city’s infrastructure.
This infrastructure was built on a scale to support more people than are left behind in the city.
We can infer that the burden of maintaining the same infrastructure now falls on fewer people than before.


Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.


What happens next is:
The rise in the property taxes makes more people leave the city, further increasing the problem.
The people of Stonebridge are leaving the city.
The government should not raise the property taxes.
We can infer that if the government raises the property taxes, more people will leave the city.


Conclusion

The city government should not raise property taxes because this will drive away more

residents from a city already losing population due to migration.



Pre-thinking
Weaken Framework
Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the weaken framework:

What new information will help us believe less in the urban planner’s conclusion that


The city government should not raise property taxes because this will drive away more residents from city already losing population due to migration.


Given that
With loss of population due to migration, a city’s property taxes rise.
With fewer residents paying to maintain the same infrastructure, the per head property tax burden increases.
These rising property taxes lead to further loss of population.
Thought Process

Understand the author’s reasoning

The urban planner presents a cause and effect cycle.

Cause: Migration

Effect: property taxes in the city go up because fewer people are paying the tax burden for the same infrastructure that was there for a larger population.





Cause: property taxes in the city go up because fewer people are paying the tax burden for the same infrastructure that was there for a larger population

Effect: more residents driven away





Cause: more residents driven away

Effect: an even further rise in property tax

Because of this, the urban planner urges the government of Stonebridge, a city starting to lose its population, not to raise the property tax for fear of losing more and more residents.

The solution would seem to be that the property taxes be lowered to contain the reduction in population(flux)

But then how would the existing infrastructure costs be borne by the city with lower revenues from property taxes?

Weakener

It seems then the infrastructure would suffer with limited revenues to maintain it.

And if sufficient funds are not spent on the infrastructure of the city, then that itself might turn out to be more counter-productive to containing the population flux.

So, if an option provides information to the above effect, then that will weaken the urban planner’s recommendation to not to raise the property taxes.


Answer Choices

Option A - This is very closely aligned with our pre-thinking weakened CORRECT

Option B - But what when people start leaving the city. The grants along with the reduced revenue from taxes may not be enough to maintain the existing infrastructure. This does not weaken the planner’s argument that taxes be reduced.


Option C - The problem is increase in taxes, so even a small increase might drive people away. Moreover, the reduced revenue may not allow further allocation to infrastructure maintenance.


Option D - Future projections may or may not materialize. Till then a lot of damage might be caused to the existing infrastructure

Option E - This leaves scope for the migrators to move to other cities with lower taxe
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 4,576
Own Kudos:
32,114
 [2]
Given Kudos: 679
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,576
Kudos: 32,114
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kartzcool
Even i had selected option 'b' as answer. Someone please tell me why is option 'b' incorrect.

Hey Kartzool!

Thought Process

Understand the author’s reasoning

The urban planner presents a cause and effect cycle.

Cause: Migration

Effect: property taxes in the city go up because fewer people are paying the tax burden for the same infrastructure that was there for a larger population.




Cause: property taxes in the city go up because fewer people are paying the tax burden for the same infrastructure that was there for a larger population

Effect: more residents driven away



Cause: more residents driven away

Effect: an even further rise in property tax

Because of this, the urban planner urges the government of Stonebridge, a city starting to lose its population, not to raise the property tax for fear of losing more and more residents.

The solution would seem to be that the property taxes be lowered to contain the reduction in population(flux)

But then how would the existing infrastructure costs be borne by the city with lower revenues from property taxes?

Weakener

It seems then the infrastructure would suffer with limited revenues to maintain it.

And if sufficient funds are not spent on the infrastructure of the city, then that itself might turn out to be more counter-productive to containing the population flux.

So, if an option provides information to the above effect, then that will weaken the urban planner’s recommendation to not to raise the property taxes.

Why is option B incorrect

Option B says - Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.

But what when people start leaving the city. The grants along with the reduced revenue from taxes may not be enough to maintain the existing infrastructure. This does not weaken the planner’s argument that taxes be reduced.

Thus, this is not the correct choice.
avatar
Maldonado
Joined: 09 Dec 2020
Last visit: 04 Apr 2021
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 24
Kudos: 31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ScottTargetTestPrep
hazelnut

(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.

This choice seems to present a fact that weakens the conclusion. The fact that property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities could be perceived as giving Stonebridge room to raise property tax rates without triggering further outmigration, because even if the government of Stonebridge were to increase the tax rates, the rates could still be lower than or equal to the rates of other cities.

However, there are two aspects of this choice that make it such that it does not effectively weaken the argument.

The first aspect is the use of the expression “many … cities.” That Stonebridge’s tax rates are lower than those of many cities does not mean that they are lower than those of all cities or even that they are lower than those of the majority of cities. The “many cities” with higher rates could be a small percentage of the set of all cities.

The second aspect is that regardless of whether Stonebridge’s tax rates are lower than those of other cities, increasing Stonebridge’s rates would make living in Stonebridge less attractive than it is when rates are lower.

Therefore, this choice does not undermine the idea that by increasing tax rates, Stonebridge would influence people to move away.

The correct answer is A.

3. Aspect) What does "larger" mean? In terms of "population" or "area"? The heart of the passage is about population. Therefore, IMO, without making sure of what exactly "larger" means, one cannot say whether it weakens the conclusion.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,477
Own Kudos:
5,447
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,431
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,477
Kudos: 5,447
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Maldonado
ScottTargetTestPrep
hazelnut

(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.

This choice seems to present a fact that weakens the conclusion. The fact that property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities could be perceived as giving Stonebridge room to raise property tax rates without triggering further outmigration, because even if the government of Stonebridge were to increase the tax rates, the rates could still be lower than or equal to the rates of other cities.

However, there are two aspects of this choice that make it such that it does not effectively weaken the argument.

The first aspect is the use of the expression “many … cities.” That Stonebridge’s tax rates are lower than those of many cities does not mean that they are lower than those of all cities or even that they are lower than those of the majority of cities. The “many cities” with higher rates could be a small percentage of the set of all cities.

The second aspect is that regardless of whether Stonebridge’s tax rates are lower than those of other cities, increasing Stonebridge’s rates would make living in Stonebridge less attractive than it is when rates are lower.

Therefore, this choice does not undermine the idea that by increasing tax rates, Stonebridge would influence people to move away.

The correct answer is A.

3. Aspect) What does "larger" mean? In terms of "population" or "area"? The heart of the passage is about population. Therefore, IMO, without making sure of what exactly "larger" means, one cannot say whether it weakens the conclusion.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Maldonado, I think your analysis in this case is resting too heavily on topic.

In other words, while we aren't sure whether "larger" refers directly to population or area, in eliminating choice (E) for that reason, we would be eliminating a choice only because we are not sure that one qualifier in that choice, "larger," is directly related to the main topic of the passage.

That's not a great reason to eliminate a choice.

We're much better off considering the implications of the fact that property taxes are lower in Stonebridge, regardless of whether "larger" refers to population or area.

In general, in relying heavily on topic in choosing among CR answer choices, we can end up missing what really matters.
avatar
mk96
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Last visit: 18 Sep 2022
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 195
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22
GPA: 4
WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Banking)
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22
Posts: 79
Kudos: 22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatexam439
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people. Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the urban planner's argument?

(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays. -Correct. If the city becomes inhabitable then there is no point in reducing the tax.
(B) Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure. -This strengthens the argument because if the city receives support from the government then it perhaps it could refrain from increasing the tax.
(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose. -No purpose is discussed in the passage.
(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years. -Several years is a long term not discussed in the passage.
(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities. -Out of scope


GMATNinja - boss, can I say that option B strengthens the argument than weaken it? I think in the official guide as well the explanation is given incorrectly. Option B doesn't weaken but strengthen the argument of "refraining from rising property taxes", as there would not be a threat of other people moving out due to raise in property taxes as the burden of infrastructure maintenance would not fall upon on the left out people, because of the funds the city get. Do you agree?? Please explain as I have been struggling to understand this question properly.

Thank you very much!
mk96
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 7,282
Own Kudos:
67,612
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,919
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,282
Kudos: 67,612
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mk96
gmatexam439
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people. Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the urban planner's argument?

(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays. -Correct. If the city becomes inhabitable then there is no point in reducing the tax.
(B) Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure. -This strengthens the argument because if the city receives support from the government then it perhaps it could refrain from increasing the tax.
(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose. -No purpose is discussed in the passage.
(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years. -Several years is a long term not discussed in the passage.
(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities. -Out of scope


GMATNinja - boss, can I say that option B strengthens the argument than weaken it? I think in the official guide as well the explanation is given incorrectly. Option B doesn't weaken but strengthen the argument of "refraining from rising property taxes", as there would not be a threat of other people moving out due to raise in property taxes as the burden of infrastructure maintenance would not fall upon on the left out people, because of the funds the city get. Do you agree?? Please explain as I have been struggling to understand this question properly.

Thank you very much!
mk96
You're right that, if anything, (B) provides some support to the argument that the city shouldn't raise property taxes. However, that support is pretty weak -- we have no idea how large the grants are in comparison to the costs of maintaining infrastructure, and we have no idea which "parts" of infrastructure are supported by the grants and which are not. For example, maybe the national government assists with maintaining roads, but doesn't help at all with maintaining safe drinking water. If this was the case, then Stonebridge may need to raise property taxes, even if it receives some assistance from the federal government.

So, while (B) might provide a bit of support for the argument it isn't really an awesome strengthener. Regardless, though, it certainly doesn't weaken the urban planner's argument, so you can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,309
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,309
Kudos: 262
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi - Do you see this as a "Plan" type CR question or a cause -effect ? I keep reading many posts about cause -effect but i saw this as a plan question.

Argument : People are leaving.
Action Plan : Do not raise property taxes.
Reasoning : if you raise property taxes, EVEN MORE people will leave.

In order to weaken this "Plan", I was hoping to find perhaps

i) If you do not raise property taxes, OTHER BAD things not related to infrastructure can happen (maybe schools will be underfundeded or benefits maybe cut)

ii)
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7282 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
233 posts