In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heate

Question

In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heaters were responsible for a significant number of fatalities, government regulators in Country X have banned the sale of kerosene. This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since oil and natural gas, the two available alternative heating fuels, are more expensive than kerosene.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Most citizens of country X base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price.

(B) It will prove impossible to fully implement the ban of kerosene, since a flourishing black market exists for the sale of banned goods in Country X.

(C) Oil and natural gas will be responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.

(D) Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

(E) The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

This is the reason they have added the word 'very' before significant.

Negation will be "heating costs are not a very significant portion..."
Well, they could be significant or just a portion. Even if they are in insignificant portion right now because kerosene is cheaper, they could become significant because oil is more expensive. 
Even then, in any case, 'a negative effect on disposable income' is a reduction. It doesn't have to be a huge reduction.

Hence, option (D) is incorrect.

When an option in an assumption question tries to quantify something (which is not mentioned in the argument), we know that it shouldn't be an assumption. There could certainly be certain figures such as more than 50% or less than 50% mentioned in an assumption if words such as 'most' or 'majority' are mentioned in the argument.

bv8562 · Answer

E IMO

Ban on the sale of kerosene oil will have a negative effect on disposable income only if the citizens continue to use heating fuels.

Posted from my mobile device

ChandlerBong · Answer

Hi KarishmaB , "This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since oil and natural gas, the two available alternative heating fuels, are more expensive than kerosene." (D) Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X. If we negate D, we get that Heating costs DO NOT absorb ..... Country X. Now, if they DO NOT absorb a "very significant portion" of the disposable income of citizens, then how can we conclude that it will have a negative effect? Because if the costs are not hurting the income of citizens, then isn't concluding that it will have a negative effect essentially wrong? Please share your views on this. Thanks in advance.

197369 · Answer

Why c is not the answer since the argument is based upon the safety of the heaters only?

Posted from my mobile device

jainanant909 · Answer

C will not be the answer because:
The conclusion states that  the ban of Kerosene will have a negative effect on the incomes of the citizens.
 Negation of C will go like this: 
 Oil and natural gas will  NOT  be responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.  
The negation of this option will not provide us with the answer of the Question that we are asked. The negation of this option is nowhere near related to the effect on the incomes because of ban of Kerosene.

Hope this makes it clear.
Thanks & Regards,
Anant.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The conclusion of this argument is that banning kerosene will have a negative effect on the disposable income of the citizens in Country X. The supporting evidence is that the alternatives to kerosene cost more than kerosene. What the argument is assuming is that people will in fact continue to heat their homes and thereby purchase the higher priced alternatives, (E). Answer (A) is a distortion of what the author is claiming. The author never claims that price is the only criteria for choosing a heating method.

(B) is out of scope. We know nothing about the price of kerosene on the black market or whether people would buy kerosene from it. (C) is, as well. The conclusion deals with the effect of the banning of kerosene of citizens’ disposable income, not on the number of fatalities. (D) can be true but doesn't have to be true for this argument to work. Even if heating costs absorbed a very small portion of the citizens’ disposable income, it could still follow that the banning of kerosene will have a negative effect on disposable income.

Ankitttaaa · Answer

Why can't A be the answer of this question?

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.

In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heate

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heate

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

My Rewards