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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
andrewjohn8
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q80 V88 DI78 
Posts: 34
Updated on: 05 Feb 2024, 16:59
Originally posted by andrewjohn8 on 31 Jan 2024, 17:42.
Last edited by andrewjohn8 on 05 Feb 2024, 16:59, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by andrewjohn8 on 05 Feb 2024, 16:59, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
69% (01:58) correct
31%
(02:17)
wrong
based on 1151
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
City Y's government plans to subsidize the construction of high-density, high-rise affordable housing downtown in order to improve the city government's finances. The city planners reason that denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for doubting that the plan will achieve its purpose?
A. A significant amount of high-rise housing has been developed throughout City Y even without any subsidies.
B. City Y's government currently spends more on new infrastructure such as roads than it does on construction of housing.
C. The current vacancy rate in affordable downtown housing in City Y is significantly higher than in cities with a similar economic profile and of comparable size.
D. Even residents in high-density, high-rise downtown housing use the existing infrastructure such as roads.
E. The city could incorporate underdeveloped land to expand its boundaries and make room for more tax-paying residents without subsidizing high-density construction.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for doubting that the plan will achieve its purpose?
A. A significant amount of high-rise housing has been developed throughout City Y even without any subsidies.
B. City Y's government currently spends more on new infrastructure such as roads than it does on construction of housing.
C. The current vacancy rate in affordable downtown housing in City Y is significantly higher than in cities with a similar economic profile and of comparable size.
D. Even residents in high-density, high-rise downtown housing use the existing infrastructure such as roads.
E. The city could incorporate underdeveloped land to expand its boundaries and make room for more tax-paying residents without subsidizing high-density construction.
Need more Tests to Practice?
GMAT Club Tests give expert solutions for every question in full and sectional GMAT Focus mocks.
Learn more →
27 Aug 2024, 11:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
City Y's government plans to subsidize the construction of high-density, high-rise affordable housing downtown in order to improve the city government's finances. The city planners reason that denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads.
This argument is about a plan. In Plan questions, it's often the case that the conclusion is not directly stated, and, in this case, City Y's government's conclusion is not directly stated. At the same time, we can see that the implied conclusion of the government is the following:
Subsidizing the construction of high-density, high-rise affordable housing downtown will serve to improve the city government's finances.
The support for that conclusion is the following:
denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads
So, the government's reasoning is the following. Construction of dense housing will allow more people who pay taxes to live in the city but will not involve much increase in spending. So, it will serve to improve the city's finances by increasing tax revenue without increasing spending much.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for doubting that the plan will achieve its purpose?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though it's true that "denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads," the plan may not achieve its purpose of improving the government's finances.
A. A significant amount of high-rise housing has been developed throughout City Y even without any subsidies.
The fact that high-rise housing has been developed without subsidies does not mean that high-rise housing developed with subsidies won't have the expected effect.
After all, regardless of what other high-rise housing has been developed or how it has been developed, it will still be the case that subsidizing development of high-rise housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y.
Eliminate.
B. City Y's government currently spends more on new infrastructure such as roads than it does on construction of housing.
This choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, even if City Y's government currently spends more on infrastructure than housing, the specific plan of subsidizing housing could still have the expected effects.
After all, even if City Y's government currently spends more on infrastructure than housing, subsidizing housing will enable more people who pay taxes to live in the city, and thus could serve to increase tax revenue, improving the city government's finances regardless of what else the government spends money on.
Eliminate.
C. The current vacancy rate in affordable downtown housing in City Y is significantly higher than in cities with a similar economic profile and of comparable size.
This choice is interesting.
After all, if the vacancy rate in affordable housing in City Y is already relatively high, then adding more high-density housing may not have the expected result of increasing tax revenue.
After all, if the vacancy rate is relatively high, then, even though subsidizing development of housing may ALLOW more tax-paying residents to live in City Y, it may not mean that more tax-paying residents WILL live in City Y. After all, there's already a relatively high vacancy rate in affordable housing. So, apparently, anyone who wants to live in affordable housing in City Y already can.
So, this choice casts doubt on prospects for the plan by attacking an underlying assumption of the plan, which is that more tax-paying residents will live in City Y if there is more affordable housing.
Keep.
D. Even residents in high-density, high-rise downtown housing use the existing infrastructure such as roads.
This choice is tricky because it could seem to undermine the case for the conclusion by showing that creation of more high-density housing will result in greater spending because residents of such housing do use infrastructure, such as roads.
Notice, however, that the support for the conclusion is not that subsidizing development of high-density housing will not result in any increase in spending. It's that subsidizing the housing "will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads."
So, the point is that the city won't have to spend much on building NEW roads, not that there won't be more use of existing roads
So, sure, increased use of existing roads by new residents could result in some increase in spending. All the same, it still makes sense that, if not much spending on new roads will be necessary, the plan could serve to improve the government's finances by bringing in new tax-paying residents without involving much of an increase in spending.
So, this choice is not a reason to doubt that the plan will achieve its purpose.
Eliminate.
E. The city could incorporate underdeveloped land to expand its boundaries and make room for more tax-paying residents without subsidizing high-density construction.
This choice basically indicates that there is a way other than subsidizing high-density housing for the city to increase tax revenue. The city could expand its boundaries instead.
The fact that there is another way to increase tax revenue does not mean that the plan won't work. It just means that there is another way as well.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
This argument is about a plan. In Plan questions, it's often the case that the conclusion is not directly stated, and, in this case, City Y's government's conclusion is not directly stated. At the same time, we can see that the implied conclusion of the government is the following:
Subsidizing the construction of high-density, high-rise affordable housing downtown will serve to improve the city government's finances.
The support for that conclusion is the following:
denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads
So, the government's reasoning is the following. Construction of dense housing will allow more people who pay taxes to live in the city but will not involve much increase in spending. So, it will serve to improve the city's finances by increasing tax revenue without increasing spending much.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for doubting that the plan will achieve its purpose?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though it's true that "denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads," the plan may not achieve its purpose of improving the government's finances.
A. A significant amount of high-rise housing has been developed throughout City Y even without any subsidies.
The fact that high-rise housing has been developed without subsidies does not mean that high-rise housing developed with subsidies won't have the expected effect.
After all, regardless of what other high-rise housing has been developed or how it has been developed, it will still be the case that subsidizing development of high-rise housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y.
Eliminate.
B. City Y's government currently spends more on new infrastructure such as roads than it does on construction of housing.
This choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, even if City Y's government currently spends more on infrastructure than housing, the specific plan of subsidizing housing could still have the expected effects.
After all, even if City Y's government currently spends more on infrastructure than housing, subsidizing housing will enable more people who pay taxes to live in the city, and thus could serve to increase tax revenue, improving the city government's finances regardless of what else the government spends money on.
Eliminate.
C. The current vacancy rate in affordable downtown housing in City Y is significantly higher than in cities with a similar economic profile and of comparable size.
This choice is interesting.
After all, if the vacancy rate in affordable housing in City Y is already relatively high, then adding more high-density housing may not have the expected result of increasing tax revenue.
After all, if the vacancy rate is relatively high, then, even though subsidizing development of housing may ALLOW more tax-paying residents to live in City Y, it may not mean that more tax-paying residents WILL live in City Y. After all, there's already a relatively high vacancy rate in affordable housing. So, apparently, anyone who wants to live in affordable housing in City Y already can.
So, this choice casts doubt on prospects for the plan by attacking an underlying assumption of the plan, which is that more tax-paying residents will live in City Y if there is more affordable housing.
Keep.
D. Even residents in high-density, high-rise downtown housing use the existing infrastructure such as roads.
This choice is tricky because it could seem to undermine the case for the conclusion by showing that creation of more high-density housing will result in greater spending because residents of such housing do use infrastructure, such as roads.
Notice, however, that the support for the conclusion is not that subsidizing development of high-density housing will not result in any increase in spending. It's that subsidizing the housing "will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads."
So, the point is that the city won't have to spend much on building NEW roads, not that there won't be more use of existing roads
So, sure, increased use of existing roads by new residents could result in some increase in spending. All the same, it still makes sense that, if not much spending on new roads will be necessary, the plan could serve to improve the government's finances by bringing in new tax-paying residents without involving much of an increase in spending.
So, this choice is not a reason to doubt that the plan will achieve its purpose.
Eliminate.
E. The city could incorporate underdeveloped land to expand its boundaries and make room for more tax-paying residents without subsidizing high-density construction.
This choice basically indicates that there is a way other than subsidizing high-density housing for the city to increase tax revenue. The city could expand its boundaries instead.
The fact that there is another way to increase tax revenue does not mean that the plan won't work. It just means that there is another way as well.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
General Discussion
05 Feb 2024, 07:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
Goal: earn more money from tax-payers
Government plan: subsidize the construction of new housing
Quote:
Looks the only decent option here. I'm a little bit worried because of "throughout City Y" phrase instead of downtown, but for me this option weakens the argument in the best possible way. It is literally says that possible locations for high-rise housing have been already built up or booked. Hence, the plan is unlikely to succeed.
Quote:
IMHO, this option is out of scope, since we actually are not interested in the finance distribution right now. What we are interested in is the future plans.
Quote:
This option strengthens the plan, so opt it out
Quote:
This is a tricky option, not sure about that. Looks like it implies that the plan to cut off expenses on infrastructure is unlikely to happen, but it might be my overthinking. Finally, I decided to opt it out.
Quote:
Out of scope
