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.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
27 Feb 2017, 06:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
74% (01:34) correct
26%
(01:28)
wrong
based on 279
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Many low income families lack health insurance and must rely on either government programs or costly trips to a hospital emergency room to meet their health needs. A politician proposes to remedy this problem by offering low income families a significant rebate on their income tax. The rebate must be used by families to purchase private health insurance. The politician argues that this proposal will ensure that all low income families have private insurance.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the viability of the politician’s proposal?
A. Some private health insurance plans are too expensive for a low income family to afford even after receiving the tax rebate.
B. Health experts believe that it is more economical to spend money on preventive care rather than to treat health issues after they develop.
C. The cost to government incurred by offering the tax rebate must be offset by raising taxes on other citizens.
D. Most low income families that lack health care do not file income tax returns because they make so little money.
E. Low income families pay income tax at a lower rate than any other income bracket.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the viability of the politician’s proposal?
A. Some private health insurance plans are too expensive for a low income family to afford even after receiving the tax rebate.
B. Health experts believe that it is more economical to spend money on preventive care rather than to treat health issues after they develop.
C. The cost to government incurred by offering the tax rebate must be offset by raising taxes on other citizens.
D. Most low income families that lack health care do not file income tax returns because they make so little money.
E. Low income families pay income tax at a lower rate than any other income bracket.
Source: McGraw-Hill's
20 Apr 2021, 07:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation
Analysis
The question stem indicates that you are to weaken the argument. Weaken questions require you to follow the same initial approach as you did on the assumption questions. So let’s analyze this argument for its premise and conclusion and jot them down. You should have something like this:
Premise: Low income families will get a significant rebate on their income tax to use to purchase private health insurance.
Conclusion: The politician’s proposal will ensure that all low income families have private insurance.
Now, you need the assumption. When looking for assumptions, pay close attention to the exact wording used in the argument. Notice that the conclusion states that “all” low income families will have insurance. The premise says that low income families will get a rebate on their income tax to help pay for this insurance, so you need to connect the income tax plan with the conclusion that all families will have insurance. Thus, the assumption is something along the lines of “all low income families will get the income tax rebate.” At this point, you have all the essentials from the argument.
In order to answer the question, you need to think about a way to attack the assumption. One obvious possibility is to find an answer that questions whether all families will truly benefit from the income tax plan. Once you have some sense of what the right answer should look like, you can attack the answer choices.
Choice A hurts the argument somewhat, but it’s not the best answer. Although it’s problematic that there are some plans a low income family can’t afford, the answer doesn’t imply that there are no affordable plans. Besides, the argument just contends that all families will have insurance; it doesn’t specify the quality of the insurance. So choice A doesn’t hurt the argument enough.
Choice B is irrelevant to the argument. The issue of preventative care has nothing to do with the politician’s plan, so eliminate this choice.
Choice C presents a potential downside to the plan, but it doesn’t actually call into question the politician’s proposal. The conclusion is simply that all low income families will be insured; the politician doesn’t argue that there will no other costs to the program.
Choice D does significantly weaken the argument. The politician wants you to believe that all families will have insurance as a result of the tax rebate program, but this choice tells you that many of these families do not file their income taxes. If the taxes aren’t filed, they can’t get the rebate or afford health insurance.
Check choice E just to be sure, but the rate at which low income families pay taxes is irrelevant to the question of whether all families will have health insurance.
Answer: D
Analysis
The question stem indicates that you are to weaken the argument. Weaken questions require you to follow the same initial approach as you did on the assumption questions. So let’s analyze this argument for its premise and conclusion and jot them down. You should have something like this:
Premise: Low income families will get a significant rebate on their income tax to use to purchase private health insurance.
Conclusion: The politician’s proposal will ensure that all low income families have private insurance.
Now, you need the assumption. When looking for assumptions, pay close attention to the exact wording used in the argument. Notice that the conclusion states that “all” low income families will have insurance. The premise says that low income families will get a rebate on their income tax to help pay for this insurance, so you need to connect the income tax plan with the conclusion that all families will have insurance. Thus, the assumption is something along the lines of “all low income families will get the income tax rebate.” At this point, you have all the essentials from the argument.
In order to answer the question, you need to think about a way to attack the assumption. One obvious possibility is to find an answer that questions whether all families will truly benefit from the income tax plan. Once you have some sense of what the right answer should look like, you can attack the answer choices.
Choice A hurts the argument somewhat, but it’s not the best answer. Although it’s problematic that there are some plans a low income family can’t afford, the answer doesn’t imply that there are no affordable plans. Besides, the argument just contends that all families will have insurance; it doesn’t specify the quality of the insurance. So choice A doesn’t hurt the argument enough.
Choice B is irrelevant to the argument. The issue of preventative care has nothing to do with the politician’s plan, so eliminate this choice.
Choice C presents a potential downside to the plan, but it doesn’t actually call into question the politician’s proposal. The conclusion is simply that all low income families will be insured; the politician doesn’t argue that there will no other costs to the program.
Choice D does significantly weaken the argument. The politician wants you to believe that all families will have insurance as a result of the tax rebate program, but this choice tells you that many of these families do not file their income taxes. If the taxes aren’t filed, they can’t get the rebate or afford health insurance.
Check choice E just to be sure, but the rate at which low income families pay taxes is irrelevant to the question of whether all families will have health insurance.
Answer: D
General Discussion
27 Feb 2017, 15:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Many low income families lack health insurance and must rely on either government programs or costly trips to a hospital emergency room to meet their health needs. A politician proposes to remedy this problem by offering low income families a significant rebate on their income tax. The rebate must be used by families to purchase private health insurance. The politician argues that this proposal will ensure that all low income families have private insurance.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the viability of the politician’s proposal?
A. Some private health insurance plans are too expensive for a low income family to afford even after receiving the tax rebate.
B. Health experts believe that it is more economical to spend money on preventive care rather than to treat health issues after they develop.
C. The cost to government incurred by offering the tax rebate must be offset by raising taxes on other citizens.
D. Most low income families that lack health care do not file income tax returns because they make so little money.
E. Low income families pay income tax at a lower rate than any other income bracket.
To weaken the argument the connection between the premise and the conclusion must weaken,while reading the argument we can see that the argument is of the planning pattern and to weaken the planning pattern we can call the viability of the plans success .Since the politicain proposes the plan for all poor/low income people the plan can be weakned by questioning that weather the poor people be able to afford it at the first plan or will they have sufficient returns after the income tax or do they even pay the tax..
A is out of scope of the argument as we are not comparing the insurance plans,Option B is also out of scope because it address an entirely different argument ,option C provides further details of the plan which does not weaken the plan but neither strengthens it.Option E is irrelevant information
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the viability of the politician’s proposal?
A. Some private health insurance plans are too expensive for a low income family to afford even after receiving the tax rebate.
B. Health experts believe that it is more economical to spend money on preventive care rather than to treat health issues after they develop.
C. The cost to government incurred by offering the tax rebate must be offset by raising taxes on other citizens.
D. Most low income families that lack health care do not file income tax returns because they make so little money.
E. Low income families pay income tax at a lower rate than any other income bracket.
To weaken the argument the connection between the premise and the conclusion must weaken,while reading the argument we can see that the argument is of the planning pattern and to weaken the planning pattern we can call the viability of the plans success .Since the politicain proposes the plan for all poor/low income people the plan can be weakned by questioning that weather the poor people be able to afford it at the first plan or will they have sufficient returns after the income tax or do they even pay the tax..
A is out of scope of the argument as we are not comparing the insurance plans,Option B is also out of scope because it address an entirely different argument ,option C provides further details of the plan which does not weaken the plan but neither strengthens it.Option E is irrelevant information
Option D is the correct weakener as it clearnly states that why the plan will not work for all low income families.
