tax preparation company automatically adds the foll

Question

Tax preparation company automatically adds the following disclaimer to every e-mail message sent to its clients: "Any tax advice in this e-mail should not be construed as advocating any violation of the provisions of the tax code." The only purpose this disclaimer could serve is to provide legal protection for the company. But if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection. So the disclaimer serves no purpose.

The argument's conclusion can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

A. If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company does not need legal protection.

B. If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then the company could be subject to substantial penalties.

C. A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will tend to be ignored by recipients who have already received many e-mails from that company.

D. At least some of the recipients of the company's e-mails will follow the advice contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive.

E. Some of the tax preparation company's clients would try to illegally evade penalties if they knew how to do so.

LSAT

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Premises:
- A disclaimer is added to every mail.
- The only purpose this disclaimer could serve is to provide legal protection for the company. 
- But if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection.

Conclusion: The disclaimer serves no purpose.

The disclaimer provides legal protection. If the e-mail suggests something illegal, disclaimer does not provide legal protection. (So it could provide legal protection if the mail does not suggest something illegal) 
But we are concluding that the disclaimer is useless.

Where is the gap? We are assuming that there is no legal protection needed if the mail does not suggest something illegal.

Negated (A): If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company could need legal protection. 
So the disclaimer is not useless. Conclusion fails.

Answer (A)

Note that what actually the recipients of the email do is irrelevant.

chetan2u · Answer

Tax preparation company automatically adds the following disclaimer to every e-mail message sent to its clients: "Any tax advice in this e-mail should not be construed as advocating any violation of the provisions of the tax code." The only purpose this disclaimer could serve is to provide legal protection for the company. But if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection. So the disclaimer serves no purpose.

The argument's conclusion can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

so we are looking for something that strengthens - disclaimer serves no purpose

A. If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company does not need legal protection. 
 So if the company does not need legal protection, then disclaimer is NOT required. 
Correct

B. If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then the company could be subject to substantial penalties. 
 does not strengthen the conclusion in any way. If the company is liable to be prosecuted, disclaimer is required

C. A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will tend to be ignored by recipients who have already received many e-mails from that company. 
 out of scope. We are talking of validity of the disclaimer, and not what the recipients would do

D. At least some of the recipients of the company's e-mails will follow the advice contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive. 
 Again out of scope

E. Some of the tax preparation company's clients would try to illegally evade penalties if they knew how to do so. 
  Doesn't touch on disclaimer at all

A

sandesh87 · Answer

Don't understand the question in first place. question has been twisted to such an extend that npthing is understood

anuj.bit2k10 · Answer

I used negation technique and found both and be to be awfully similar. Could someone please help.

ENEM · Answer

any answer that on negation hurts the conclusion: So the disclaimer serves no purpose. 
ie states that the disclaimer does serve a purpose is our answer...

B. If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then the company could be subject to substantial penalties.  (irrelevant we are only concerned with anything that hurts the conclusion about the disclaimer...this does not address that...hence eliminated)

C. A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will tend to be ignored by recipients who have already received many e-mails from that company. 
 even if they tend not to ignore it there is not guarantee that they will or will not act on it...so eliminated

D. At least some of the recipients of the company's e-mails will follow the advice contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive. 
 it is not specified whether this is about legal advice or some other(tax related advice) so eliminated

E. Some of the tax preparation company's clients would try to illegally evade penalties if they knew how to do so.  irrelevant to conclusion eliminated

A) If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company does not need legal protection. 
 this hurts the conclusion on negation because if it is suggested in the email that the client has done something illegal and yet the company does not require legal protection...it means the disclaimer is serving its purpose...correct answer

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Premise:
While the disclaimer could serve only one purpose -- legal protection -- it offers no legal protection for a suggestion that the client do something illegal.
Conclusion:
The disclaimer serves no purpose.

Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.
To negate an IF-THEN statement, reverse only the THEN-portion, leaving the IF-portion unchanged.

A, negated:
 If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company needs legal protection. 
Here -- even without the suggestion of illegal behavior -- the company still needs the disclaimer's legal protection, invalidating the conclusion that the disclaimer serves no purpose.
Since the negation of A invalidates the conclusion, A is an ASSUMPTION: a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to hold.

A

B, negated:
 If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then  the company will not be subject to substantial penalties  . 
The portion in red SUPPORTS the conclusion that the disclaimer serves no purpose.
Since a valid negation must trash the conclusion, eliminate B.

C, negated:
 A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will tend to be seen by recipients who have already received many e-mails from that company. 
According to the passage, the ONLY purpose that the disclaimer could serve is LEGAL PROTECTION.
Since this negation tells us nothing about legal protection, eliminate C.

D, negated:
  None of the recipients of the company's e-mails will follow the advice  contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive.  
The portion in red SUPPORTS the conclusion that the disclaimer serves no purpose.
Since a valid negation must trash the conclusion, eliminate D.

E, negated:
 None of the tax preparation company's clients would try to illegally evade penalties  if they knew how to do so. 
The portion in red SUPPORTS the conclusion that the disclaimer serves no purpose.
Since a valid negation must trash the conclusion, eliminate E.

egmat · Answer

Thought process:

The question asks for the assumption on which the conclusion is built on. 
 Conclusion :  The disclaimer serves no purpose.

Falsification Question:  
In what scenario is it possible that the disclaimer does have a purpose given that:
1. The disclaimer provides legal protection if a recipient violates tax codes by following the tax advices in the email.
2. If the email does suggest illegal methods, the disclaimer cannot offer protection.

Possible falsification Scenarios.

1. What if a tax advice could be open to interpretation by recipients leading to illegal activities?

2. What if all the tax advices provided by the company are not perfectly legal?

Assumptions

1. None of the provided tax advices are not open to interpretations that may lead to illegal methods if followed.
2. All tax advices provided by the company via email are perfectly legal.

Option Analysis

A. If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company does not need legal protection.  
 In line with our prethinking assumption #2. Correct Answer

B. If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then the company could be subject to substantial penalties. 
 Whether the company should be subject to penalties or not is not relevant when what we need to prove is about the utility of the disclaimer.

C. A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will tend to be ignored by recipients who have already received many e-mails from that company. 
 Whether the recipients ignore the email or not does not affect the legal utility of a disclaimer.

D. At least some of the recipients of the company's e-mails will follow the advice contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive. 
 This is a weakener since it makes us aware of the situation that there is a possibility that people may follow the emailed advices and if nobody follows the advice, then it strengthens the lack of utility of the disclaimer.

E. Some of the tax preparation company's clients would try to illegally evade penalties if they knew how to do so. 
  What happens after a violation of tax code by the recipient is out of the scope of the passage.

unraveled · Answer

Tax preparation company automatically adds the following disclaimer to every e-mail message sent to its clients: "Any tax advice in this e-mail should not be construed as advocating any violation of the provisions of the tax code." The only purpose this disclaimer could serve is to provide legal protection for the company. But if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection. So the disclaimer serves no purpose.

The argument's conclusion can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

A. If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company does not need legal protection. - CORRECT. First, i thought this is like A ----> B, then Not A --/--> Not B(most because this is a hard passage that i didn't understood well). But even then my approach was wrong to think of Not A --/--> Not B because that is wrong principle to apply here. POE helps in this case most. But importantly this does impacts conclusion that disclaimer would serve some purpose.

B. If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then the company could be subject to  substantial penalties . - WRONG. Out of scope. Not impacting the conclusion.

C. A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will  tend to be ignored by recipients  who have already received many e-mails from that company. - WRONG.

D. At least some of the recipients of the company's e-mails will follow the advice contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive. - WRONG. This hooked me for a while and eventually chose it, mostly because i didn't understood the passage well. An afterthought suggests that this is similar to E i.e. it doesn't affect the passage conclusion. For it to affect further assumption/s are need to be made.

E. Some of the tax preparation company's clients would try to illegally evade penalties if they knew how to do so. - WRONG. Nothing relates to conclusion. What some clients do is not at all impacting the conclusion.

Answer A.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

tax preparation company automatically adds the foll

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

tax preparation company automatically adds the foll

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia