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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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 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.
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.
06 May 2024, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:32) correct
30%
(01:37)
wrong
based on 169
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Citizen: Our legislators need to act quickly to counter the effects of the recession, especially the present level of unemployment, which is the highest ever. We urgently need a major tax cut for our upper-income citizens. There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs. If this measure is not taken, investment will not grow.
The citizen's argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the recession in the citizen's country is the worst one in its history
(B) the greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money
(C) upper-income citizens have invested more money in total than have lower-income citizens
(D) upper-income citizens would use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment
(E) in the past, tax cuts for certain groups of people have tended to create new jobs
The citizen's argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the recession in the citizen's country is the worst one in its history
(B) the greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money
(C) upper-income citizens have invested more money in total than have lower-income citizens
(D) upper-income citizens would use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment
(E) in the past, tax cuts for certain groups of people have tended to create new jobs
06 May 2024, 16:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Citizen: Our legislators need to act quickly to counter the effects of the recession, especially the present level of unemployment, which is the highest ever. We urgently need a major tax cut for our upper-income citizens. There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs. If this measure is not taken, investment will not grow.
We see that the citizen has reasoned that, since there is a recession involving "the highest ever" level of unemployment, a major tax cut for upper-income citizens is needed. The citizen goes on to say that such a tax cut would result in a large increase in investment.
This passage doesn't work the way GMAT Critical Reasoning passages tend to work since there's no defined main conclusion with a clear supporting premise. Rather, the passage presents a set of related statements about a tax cut and an increase in investment.
The citizen's argument depends on the assumption that
This question is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will state something that must be true for the argument to work.
Since the passage isn't quite like most GMAT CR passages, answering the question won't work quite the same as answering a GMAT Assumption question generally does. All the same, we can still find an assumption that's necessary for the argument to hold together.
(A) the recession in the citizen's country is the worst one in its history
The argument doesn't depend on this choice. After all, even if the recession is not the worst one in the country's history, it still appears to be a major recession given the high rate of unemployment. So, it could still make sense that a tax cut that would stimulate investment is urgently needed.
Eliminate.
(B) the greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money
This choice is tricky because it does appear that the citizen is assuming that a tax cut makes it more likely that upper-income citizens will invest money. So, this choice could appear to be state something upon which the argument depends.
At the same time, if we look at this choice carefully, we see that it's not quite what the argument needs.
For one thing, the argument is not about just any "group of people." It's about upper-income citizens specifically. So, the argument doesn't require an assumption about an nonspecific "group of people." The argument requires only information about "upper-income citizens."
Another issue is that the argument is about a binary choice: a major tax cut versus no tax cut. It's not about how making tax cuts bigger will make people more likely to invest. So, the argument doesn't require there to be some kind of correlation between the size of a tax cut and the likelihood that people will invest.
In other words, even if a tax cut that is "greater" than "major" won't make it even more likely that people will invest, the argument works.
So, the argument doesn't require it to be the case that "the greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money."
Eliminate.
(C) upper-income citizens have invested more money in total than have lower-income citizens
Notice that this choice is about what people "have invested" in the past.
In contrast, the argument is about the future effects of a tax cut. So, it doesn't require this statement about what people have done in the past to be true.
After all, regardles of whether, in the past, upper-income ciitzens have invested more than lower-income citizens, it could still be the case that a major tax cut would cause upper income citizens to invest.
Eliminate.
(D) upper-income citizens would use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment
This choice is interesting.
After all, the citizen says, "Our legislators need to act quickly .... We urgently need a major tax cut for our upper-income citizens. There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs."
In saying that, the citizen is assuming that "upper-income citizens would use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment."
After all, if they would not use the money in ways that increase investment, then it doesn't make sense to conclude that, if there's a tax cut, "There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs."
Of course, in that case, it also doesn't make sense to say that a tax cut for upper-income citizens is urgently needed.
In other words, if this choice is not true, the citizen's argument falls apart.
So, this choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
Keep.
(E) in the past, tax cuts for certain groups of people have tended to create new jobs
Notice that, like (C), this choice is about the past, whereas the argument is about the future effects of a tax cut. So, the argument does not depend on this choice.
After all, even if there have never been tax cuts in the past or tax cuts have not resulted in job creation in the past, it could still be that, in this particular case, a tax cut for upper-income citizens would result in job creation.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: D
We see that the citizen has reasoned that, since there is a recession involving "the highest ever" level of unemployment, a major tax cut for upper-income citizens is needed. The citizen goes on to say that such a tax cut would result in a large increase in investment.
This passage doesn't work the way GMAT Critical Reasoning passages tend to work since there's no defined main conclusion with a clear supporting premise. Rather, the passage presents a set of related statements about a tax cut and an increase in investment.
The citizen's argument depends on the assumption that
This question is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will state something that must be true for the argument to work.
Since the passage isn't quite like most GMAT CR passages, answering the question won't work quite the same as answering a GMAT Assumption question generally does. All the same, we can still find an assumption that's necessary for the argument to hold together.
(A) the recession in the citizen's country is the worst one in its history
The argument doesn't depend on this choice. After all, even if the recession is not the worst one in the country's history, it still appears to be a major recession given the high rate of unemployment. So, it could still make sense that a tax cut that would stimulate investment is urgently needed.
Eliminate.
(B) the greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money
This choice is tricky because it does appear that the citizen is assuming that a tax cut makes it more likely that upper-income citizens will invest money. So, this choice could appear to be state something upon which the argument depends.
At the same time, if we look at this choice carefully, we see that it's not quite what the argument needs.
For one thing, the argument is not about just any "group of people." It's about upper-income citizens specifically. So, the argument doesn't require an assumption about an nonspecific "group of people." The argument requires only information about "upper-income citizens."
Another issue is that the argument is about a binary choice: a major tax cut versus no tax cut. It's not about how making tax cuts bigger will make people more likely to invest. So, the argument doesn't require there to be some kind of correlation between the size of a tax cut and the likelihood that people will invest.
In other words, even if a tax cut that is "greater" than "major" won't make it even more likely that people will invest, the argument works.
So, the argument doesn't require it to be the case that "the greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money."
Eliminate.
(C) upper-income citizens have invested more money in total than have lower-income citizens
Notice that this choice is about what people "have invested" in the past.
In contrast, the argument is about the future effects of a tax cut. So, it doesn't require this statement about what people have done in the past to be true.
After all, regardles of whether, in the past, upper-income ciitzens have invested more than lower-income citizens, it could still be the case that a major tax cut would cause upper income citizens to invest.
Eliminate.
(D) upper-income citizens would use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment
This choice is interesting.
After all, the citizen says, "Our legislators need to act quickly .... We urgently need a major tax cut for our upper-income citizens. There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs."
In saying that, the citizen is assuming that "upper-income citizens would use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment."
After all, if they would not use the money in ways that increase investment, then it doesn't make sense to conclude that, if there's a tax cut, "There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs."
Of course, in that case, it also doesn't make sense to say that a tax cut for upper-income citizens is urgently needed.
In other words, if this choice is not true, the citizen's argument falls apart.
So, this choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
Keep.
(E) in the past, tax cuts for certain groups of people have tended to create new jobs
Notice that, like (C), this choice is about the past, whereas the argument is about the future effects of a tax cut. So, the argument does not depend on this choice.
After all, even if there have never been tax cuts in the past or tax cuts have not resulted in job creation in the past, it could still be that, in this particular case, a tax cut for upper-income citizens would result in job creation.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: D
06 May 2024, 21:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
It's always feel good to read @MartyMurray thought process. Here is my take:
Attachments
Screenshot_20240507_093603_Samsung Notes.jpg [ 414.01 KiB | Viewed 1756 times ]
