It is currently 24 Sep 2017, 21:38

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

While Governor Verdant has been in office, the states budget

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 424

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Location: Aus
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the states budget [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Jul 2004, 22:06
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

While Governor Verdant has been in office, the stateâ€™s budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the stateâ€™s budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdantâ€™s term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governorâ€™s term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdantâ€™s term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdantâ€™s term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdantâ€™s term in office, the stateâ€™s budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdantâ€™s term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governorâ€™s term.
(E) During the previous governorâ€™s term in office, the state introduced several so-called â€œausterityâ€

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 154

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

Location: san jose,ca

Show Tags

16 Jul 2004, 22:42
E for me.

(E) During the previous governorâ€™s term in office, the state introduced several so-called â€œausterityâ€
_________________

GS
No excuses - Need 750!!!

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 0

Location: Florida

Show Tags

16 Jul 2004, 22:45
A for me. I will try to explain, a bit later.

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 844

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

17 Jul 2004, 01:29
Agree with DJ

A is my FA (1min 26s)

Reason: If the rate of inflation increased by a greater factor in the previous governer's term, and just by 3% in Verdant's term then low spending does not imply that there is a stunted growth, rather, it would imply that with the same amount of money the state could achieve more growth (the only thing which I am still thinking about is whether 10% and 3% mean anything!...it is possible that money spent (or) the value achieved with 10% rate of increase in inflation might be more than with 3% increase in the rate of inflation....but will wail for the OA!)

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 170

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: Noida, UP

Show Tags

17 Jul 2004, 08:20
E for me too.

A - I don't know how inflation is linked to "growth in state spending"
B - ditto for the tax cuts
C- It is obvious because budget has only increased, so this is just restating the facts
D - This also seems out of scope of the question

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 392

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangalore, India

Show Tags

17 Jul 2004, 08:30
I believe it is E. It would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn below because the austerety budgets were introduced earlier - an another cause to refute the conclusion.

A looks out of scope. Inflation and slowdown in the growth in state spending are unrelated within the scope of the passage.

What is OA?

Geethu wrote:

While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state’s budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state’s budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant’s term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor’s term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant’s term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdant’s term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdant’s term in office, the state’s budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdant’s term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor’s term.
(E) During the previous governor’s term in office, the state introduced several so-called “austerity” budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending

_________________

Awaiting response,

Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 392

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangalore, India

Show Tags

17 Jul 2004, 08:32
The growth you are talking about is different from the growth in state spending.

Anyway, let us await OA.

Vithal wrote:
Agree with DJ

A is my FA (1min 26s)

Reason: If the rate of inflation increased by a greater factor in the previous governer's term, and just by 3% in Verdant's term then low spending does not imply that there is a stunted growth, rather, it would imply that with the same amount of money the state could achieve more growth (the only thing which I am still thinking about is whether 10% and 3% mean anything!...it is possible that money spent (or) the value achieved with 10% rate of increase in inflation might be more than with 3% increase in the rate of inflation....but will wail for the OA!)

_________________

Awaiting response,

Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 424

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Location: Aus

Show Tags

17 Jul 2004, 11:43

Vithal wrote:
Agree with DJ

A is my FA (1min 26s)

Reason: If the rate of inflation increased by a greater factor in the previous governer's term, and just by 3% in Verdant's term then low spending does not imply that there is a stunted growth, rather, it would imply that with the same amount of money the state could achieve more growth (the only thing which I am still thinking about is whether 10% and 3% mean anything!...it is possible that money spent (or) the value achieved with 10% rate of increase in inflation might be more than with 3% increase in the rate of inflation....but will wail for the OA!)

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 154

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

Location: san jose,ca

Show Tags

17 Jul 2004, 13:41
wow, A is the answer! That means it is expected to know some basic facts, like inflation is taken into consideration in comparing spendings. I thought otherwise, and eliminated A.
_________________

GS
No excuses - Need 750!!!

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 392

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangalore, India

Show Tags

17 Jul 2004, 17:52
Congrats Vithal. Right answer says it all.

mallelac wrote:
The growth you are talking about is different from the growth in state spending.

Anyway, let us await OA.

Vithal wrote:
Agree with DJ

A is my FA (1min 26s)

Reason: If the rate of inflation increased by a greater factor in the previous governer's term, and just by 3% in Verdant's term then low spending does not imply that there is a stunted growth, rather, it would imply that with the same amount of money the state could achieve more growth (the only thing which I am still thinking about is whether 10% and 3% mean anything!...it is possible that money spent (or) the value achieved with 10% rate of increase in inflation might be more than with 3% increase in the rate of inflation....but will wail for the OA!)

_________________

Awaiting response,

Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

17 Jul 2004, 17:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by