Many states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting state

Question

Many states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting state funding for colleges and universities. However, many students who cannot afford the tuition increases resulting from the decreased state funding will not be able to earn a college education and, as a result, will not be able to move into higher paying careers. Consequently, the state will lose future income tax revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

A. Many states that have already reduced their funding for colleges and universities have seen declines in income tax revenues in the following years.

B. Many states that have not cut education funding have seen budget deficits grow larger.

C. States that do not cut their education funding sometimes also experience declines in tax revenues.

D. Cuts to colleges and universities affect two-year colleges and well as four-year colleges.

E. The size of the budget deficit is usually too great to be eliminated by reductions in higher education funding alone.

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

Krunaal · Answer

(A) This directly supports the argument by providing evidence that states that reduced education funding experienced the predicted outcome: a decline in future income tax revenues. This confirms the negative economic consequences of cutting funding for higher education.  CORRECT

(B) This weakens the argument by suggesting that maintaining education funding might not solve the budget deficit problem, but it doesn’t address the main concern about future tax revenues.  INCORRECT

(C) This is irrelevant to the argument, as it discusses situations where funding is not cut but tax revenues still decline. It doesn’t address the impact of cutting education funding on tax revenues.  INCORRECT

(D) This is a neutral statement. While it expands the scope of the problem, it does not strengthen the argument about the long-term economic impact of cutting education funding.  INCORRECT

(E) This doesn’t strengthen the argument, as it focuses on the magnitude of the budget deficit, not on the specific consequences of cutting education funding.  INCORRECT

Answer A.

Bismuth83 · Answer

1. We are given the argument that if  "states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting state funding for colleges and universities" , then as a consequence,  "the state will lose future income tax revenues" . Now we need  a statement to strengthen this argument .

2.  Many states that have already reduced their funding for colleges and universities have seen declines in income tax revenues in the following years.  This is perfect since it mentions the action and that the consequence will happen.   So, this statement does strengthen the argument.

3.  Many states that have not cut education funding have seen budget deficits grow larger.  Our argument talks about losing future income tax revenues, which isn't mentioned here.   So, this statement doesn't strengthen the argument.

4.  States that do not cut their education funding sometimes also experience declines in tax revenues.  We are interested in rather the change that will happen if the states were to cut their education funding.   So, this statement doesn't strengthen the argument.

5.  Cuts to colleges and universities affect two-year colleges and well as four-year colleges.  This is irrelevant since it doesn't discuss the impact in the future.   So, this statement doesn't strengthen the argument.

6.  The size of the budget deficit is usually too great to be eliminated by reductions in higher education funding alone.  This statement is also irrelevant since it discusses how large the problem is and not about the consequence.   So, this statement doesn't strengthen the argument.

Abdelaali91 · Answer

A. Yes this gives us some concrete evidence to support the conclusion.

B. Irrelevant to the argument.

C. if it's true that states that do not cut their education funding sometimes also experience declines in tax revenues, the argument would be weakened. After all, why cut the education funding and lose revenues if tax revenue decline is inevitable

D. Nothing new to the argument, just adding a detail about a statement made by the argument

E. this indicates that the plan to cut education funding won't work alone. Not a strengthener.

SAKSHI2907 · Answer

can someone let me know what are these butler questions?

Bunuel · Answer

These are just practice questions posted on weekdays.

prantorboni · Answer

Many states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting state funding for colleges and universities. However, many students who cannot afford the tuition increases resulting from the decreased state funding will not be able to earn a college education and, as a result, will not be able to move into higher paying careers. Consequently, the state will lose future income tax revenues.

Presumption: We need to find a statement which states if reduction in funding for colleges and universities takes place, it will increase the budget deficit in coming years.

Consider, A. Many states that have already reduced their funding for colleges and universities have seen declines in income tax revenues in the following years which completely aligns with our presumption.

Answer: A.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Answer: A.

This is a Strengthen question. The conclusion is “the state will lose future income tax revenues” from cutting funding for colleges and universities. This is because those students cannot move into higher paying jobs and will pay less in taxes.

Choice A is a direct analogy, with other states having taken the same action and experiencing the same result. This answer does not guarantee the conclusion but it certainly strengthens it.

Choice B mentions those states that have not cut education funding; this does not apply to the argument since in this argument the state did cut funding.

Choice C also mentions states that do not cut education funding and also does not apply.

Choice D indicates that cuts will impact two-year and four-year colleges but does not say anything that would support a decline in tax revenues.

Choice E concerns the size of the budget deficit but not whether decreased education funding will result in lower tax revenues in the future.

Many states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting state

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

Many states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting state

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