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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
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
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
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.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
13 Jun 2022, 10:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi AndrewN
I thought of option D like this :
People who are not hiding are being awarded by lower taxes. So people are being given a reason to NOT evade. This potentially can break the chain. To add to this, if you evade, you would be penalized as you would have to pay more tax.
So if I put myself in the shoes of someone is looking to evade taxes, I would actually just have one choice. To not evade taxes and get a tax benefit. Why would someone, in their sound mind, would evade taxes and get in an even higher debt if there is a provision in which when he chooses to pay, he gets a tax benefit?
This whole line of thought made me confident that option D should definitely break the chain.
Where did I go wrong ?
I thought of option D like this :
People who are not hiding are being awarded by lower taxes. So people are being given a reason to NOT evade. This potentially can break the chain. To add to this, if you evade, you would be penalized as you would have to pay more tax.
So if I put myself in the shoes of someone is looking to evade taxes, I would actually just have one choice. To not evade taxes and get a tax benefit. Why would someone, in their sound mind, would evade taxes and get in an even higher debt if there is a provision in which when he chooses to pay, he gets a tax benefit?
This whole line of thought made me confident that option D should definitely break the chain.
Where did I go wrong ?
13 Jun 2022, 12:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Namangupta1997
Your confidence was based on a string of assumptions, Namangupta1997. I think option (D) is in trouble from the first two words: no one. Really? Does it have to be true that because not a single person... the vicious cycle results?
Sure, people might have a reason not to avoid paying taxes if those taxes were lower and the fines for evasion were higher, but when you write that if you evade, you would be penalized as you would have to pay more tax, you are assuming that someone guilty of tax evasion would get caught. Depending on that risk, many people might rather pay no taxes at all by not declaring taxable income than pay even reduced taxes. Although answer choice (D) makes for a could-be-true scenario, it does not deliver on the must-be-true framework of the question stem: could not result unless which of the following were true.
I say this often in my CR posts, and I will reiterate: when you follow one-step-removed reasoning, you can get sidetracked really fast. The correct answer should not take finagling to justify.
Thank you for thinking to ask.
- Andrew
06 Nov 2023, 19:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
The language of the argument makes it difficult to understand. So, let's unpack it step by step.
When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vicious cycle results. Conclusion. This is causal. People evade taxes (cause) - results in a vicious cycle (effect).
Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates, which causes the tax burden on nonevading taxpayers to become heavier. This, in turn, encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income. - It just explains the vicious cycle.
Let's also unpack the question stem. "The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?" As mikemcgarry also explained, it is double negative. E.g., A banana is not an uncommon fruit. When we have a double negative, they cancel, creating a positive. So, the outcome is A banana is a common fruit. Likewise, in our question stem, the outcome of a double negative is in raw form: "The vicious cycle described could result if which of the following were true." or "For the vicious cycle to occur, which of the following must be true."
So, we are trying to find an assumption (assumption by its function is a strengthener)
What kind of argument are we trying to find an assumption? Causal argument.
What is an assumption in the causal argument? There is no alternate reason. If there is an option that says that the lawmakers raise the taxes because of the budget deficit. That shares an alternate reason and breaks the conclusion. So, we need to shield or safeguard the argument against this alternate cause. How can we do that? By saying, "The budget deficit is not a reason to increase the taxes.
There is another way to find an assumption, which is to reinforce the argument, which is what option C does. It says that the lawmakers did not take into account the lost revenue. Which is good for the argument, and the vicious cycle continues.
How?
For example - We have a population of 340 million, and the lawmakers plan to collect $3 trillion or more in taxes. This approximately translates to $9000 per person. So lawmakers say as everyone's average income is $100,000, they have a 9% tax (sorry, I am taking a very straightforward example. I know it's not that simple, but the discussion point here is to make us understand the issue). After a year, they found they only collected $1.5 trillion. Oh, they missed that 50% of the people in this country don't pay taxes. So now they have increased the tax to 18%. After a year, they still reach only $2 trillion. Oh, they pissed off some people with increased taxes, so now 65% of people don't pay taxes....and this cycle continues.
Instead, if the lawmakers had done the opposite, which is to consider the leakage and set the tax - that would have stopped the vicious cycle. How? Ok, we have a population of 340 million. 50% of whom we know don't pay taxes. So, the tax-paying population is 170 million. Oh, what is the unemployment rate? Say it's 5%? What percentage of people are below the poverty line? Say 10% .....blah blah....Okay, so taking variables into account, let's set the tax of 10% for this income bracket, 15% for this income bracket, ....by the way, 35% for this income bracket, and so on..,...There is a good chance that the lawmakers could break the vicious cycle.
If you have understood so far, let's look at the options -
(A) An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers to try to increase their pretax incomes. -
Negate it. An increase in tax rate doesn't work as an incentive. So, people may evade more, which will strengthen the conclusion. The assumption is something which, when negated, should shatter the conclusion and not strengthen it. At best, it is a weakener.
(B) Some methods for detecting tax evaders, and thus recovering some tax revenue lost through evasion, bring in more than they cost, but their success rate varies from year to year. This is saying some methods bring more than their cost. So, there is a net positive effect in reducing the number of tax evaders, thus avoiding the vicious cycle. In this case, the assumption will let the vicious cycle (effect) happen and not stop it. This is a straightforward weakener.
If you are in love with negation (it is not a good idea to try on every option as it wastes time. It is best to try on two final shortlisted options at max), then let's do a negation test.
Negation - No method brings more than its cost. So, there is no way to have a positive effect, so the vicious cycle will continue. Option, when negated, will be an assumption if it shatters the conclusion. Contrary to that, this strengthens it. So, it's not our assumption. Weakener.
(C) When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion. - this is ok for the argument. It means lawmakers don't consider the loss of revenue, which is okay for the conclusion. It aids or reinforces the causal argument that tax evasion (cause) leads to a vicious cycle (effect). If we negate it, it'll shatter the conclusion. If the lawmakers consider the leakage, then the vicious cycle stops. This is our assumption as it aids or reinforces the conclusion, and its negation shatters it.
(D) No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time. - The opposite of no one is some, which can be at least 2. Ok, so two people are induced by lower taxes. So what? Is that sufficient to bridge the gap? No. So the lawmakers can still increase the tax. This is out of scope.
(E) Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of taxation that will cause them to evade taxes. - The argument implies that they differ from each other. That's why some people get pissed off at 10%, some may at 15%, some may at 35% and so on. Had they been getting pissed off at, say, 10%, then everyone would not pay tax, and there is no cycle at all as no one now pays taxes. It weakens the conclusion.
When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vicious cycle results. Conclusion. This is causal. People evade taxes (cause) - results in a vicious cycle (effect).
Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates, which causes the tax burden on nonevading taxpayers to become heavier. This, in turn, encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income. - It just explains the vicious cycle.
Let's also unpack the question stem. "The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?" As mikemcgarry also explained, it is double negative. E.g., A banana is not an uncommon fruit. When we have a double negative, they cancel, creating a positive. So, the outcome is A banana is a common fruit. Likewise, in our question stem, the outcome of a double negative is in raw form: "The vicious cycle described could result if which of the following were true." or "For the vicious cycle to occur, which of the following must be true."
So, we are trying to find an assumption (assumption by its function is a strengthener)
What kind of argument are we trying to find an assumption? Causal argument.
What is an assumption in the causal argument? There is no alternate reason. If there is an option that says that the lawmakers raise the taxes because of the budget deficit. That shares an alternate reason and breaks the conclusion. So, we need to shield or safeguard the argument against this alternate cause. How can we do that? By saying, "The budget deficit is not a reason to increase the taxes.
There is another way to find an assumption, which is to reinforce the argument, which is what option C does. It says that the lawmakers did not take into account the lost revenue. Which is good for the argument, and the vicious cycle continues.
How?
For example - We have a population of 340 million, and the lawmakers plan to collect $3 trillion or more in taxes. This approximately translates to $9000 per person. So lawmakers say as everyone's average income is $100,000, they have a 9% tax (sorry, I am taking a very straightforward example. I know it's not that simple, but the discussion point here is to make us understand the issue). After a year, they found they only collected $1.5 trillion. Oh, they missed that 50% of the people in this country don't pay taxes. So now they have increased the tax to 18%. After a year, they still reach only $2 trillion. Oh, they pissed off some people with increased taxes, so now 65% of people don't pay taxes....and this cycle continues.
Instead, if the lawmakers had done the opposite, which is to consider the leakage and set the tax - that would have stopped the vicious cycle. How? Ok, we have a population of 340 million. 50% of whom we know don't pay taxes. So, the tax-paying population is 170 million. Oh, what is the unemployment rate? Say it's 5%? What percentage of people are below the poverty line? Say 10% .....blah blah....Okay, so taking variables into account, let's set the tax of 10% for this income bracket, 15% for this income bracket, ....by the way, 35% for this income bracket, and so on..,...There is a good chance that the lawmakers could break the vicious cycle.
If you have understood so far, let's look at the options -
(A) An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers to try to increase their pretax incomes. -
Negate it. An increase in tax rate doesn't work as an incentive. So, people may evade more, which will strengthen the conclusion. The assumption is something which, when negated, should shatter the conclusion and not strengthen it. At best, it is a weakener.
(B) Some methods for detecting tax evaders, and thus recovering some tax revenue lost through evasion, bring in more than they cost, but their success rate varies from year to year. This is saying some methods bring more than their cost. So, there is a net positive effect in reducing the number of tax evaders, thus avoiding the vicious cycle. In this case, the assumption will let the vicious cycle (effect) happen and not stop it. This is a straightforward weakener.
If you are in love with negation (it is not a good idea to try on every option as it wastes time. It is best to try on two final shortlisted options at max), then let's do a negation test.
Negation - No method brings more than its cost. So, there is no way to have a positive effect, so the vicious cycle will continue. Option, when negated, will be an assumption if it shatters the conclusion. Contrary to that, this strengthens it. So, it's not our assumption. Weakener.
(C) When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion. - this is ok for the argument. It means lawmakers don't consider the loss of revenue, which is okay for the conclusion. It aids or reinforces the causal argument that tax evasion (cause) leads to a vicious cycle (effect). If we negate it, it'll shatter the conclusion. If the lawmakers consider the leakage, then the vicious cycle stops. This is our assumption as it aids or reinforces the conclusion, and its negation shatters it.
(D) No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time. - The opposite of no one is some, which can be at least 2. Ok, so two people are induced by lower taxes. So what? Is that sufficient to bridge the gap? No. So the lawmakers can still increase the tax. This is out of scope.
(E) Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of taxation that will cause them to evade taxes. - The argument implies that they differ from each other. That's why some people get pissed off at 10%, some may at 15%, some may at 35% and so on. Had they been getting pissed off at, say, 10%, then everyone would not pay tax, and there is no cycle at all as no one now pays taxes. It weakens the conclusion.
