According to the Department of Social Services

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:00 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members
According to the Department of Social Services, new taxes need to be generated to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program, which provides medical coverage for the state's poor and uninsured residents. The governor has proposed that a special tax be imposed on those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year to pay for the shortfalls in the Medical Aid program. While new revenues are indeed needed to maintain the Medical Aid program's solvency, the governor's plan for securing the needed funds should be rejected because it would force certain taxpayers to absorb the cost for something from which they would receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the feasibility of the governor's plan to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program?

A. Before any such tax increase can be imposed, the state is required by law to hold hearings at which objections to the proposed tax hike can be raised.

B. Imposing a special tax will fail to address the underlying causes for the increasing costs to maintain the state's Medical Aid program or the increasing number of uninsured residents in the state.

C. In recent years, changes to the Medical Aid funding formula have shifted much of the burden for maintaining the program from the federal government to state governments.

D. Those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year represent a powerful political constituency in the state and previous attempts to impose tax increases on this group have been blocked by the state legislature.

E. Other states that have tried to impose similar targeted tax increases to maintain the solvency of their Medical Aid programs have met with mixed success.

Here is my analysis regarding the question

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the feasibility of the governor's plan to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program?

In order to weaken the feasibility of Governors plan

A. Before any such tax increase can be imposed, the state is required by law to hold hearings at which objections to the proposed tax hike can be raised.
What they need to do before imposing the tax increase does not affect the conclusion at all.

B. Imposing a special tax will fail to address the underlying causes for the increasing costs to maintain the state's Medical Aid program or the increasing number of uninsured residents in the state.
(If imposing tax will not address the underlying causes and the costs increase then the plan caanot be successful even if extra revenue is generated i.e., it cant help to aid Medical Aid program. Although not convincing keep it a side.)

C. In recent years, changes to the Medical Aid funding formula have shifted much of the burden for maintaining the program from the federal government to state governments.
(Out of scope. This does not affect the argument in any way.)

D. Those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year represent a powerful political constituency in the state and previous attempts to impose tax increases on this group have been blocked by the state legislature.
(Just because it happened previously need not ensure that it does not happen now. Keep it aside.)

E. Other states that have tried to impose similar targeted tax increases to maintain the solvency of their Medical Aid programs have met with mixed success.
Other states met with mixed success ie., some positive some negative. This neither strengthens nor weakens.

So left with B and D.
I chose B because of the reason mentioned with D.
Need expert help to know why D is right.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:38 am
According to the Department of Social Services, new taxes need to be generated to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program, which provides medical coverage for the state's poor and uninsured residents. The governor has proposed that a special tax be imposed on those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year to pay for the shortfalls in the Medical Aid program. While new revenues are indeed needed to maintain the Medical Aid program's solvency, the governor's plan for securing the needed funds should be rejected because it would force certain taxpayers to absorb the cost for something from which they would receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the feasibility of the governor's plan to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program?

A. Before any such tax increase can be imposed, the state is required by law to hold hearings at which objections to the proposed tax hike can be raised.

B. Imposing a special tax will fail to address the underlying causes for the increasing costs to maintain the state's Medical Aid program or the increasing number of uninsured residents in the state.

C. In recent years, changes to the Medical Aid funding formula have shifted much of the burden for maintaining the program from the federal government to state governments.

D. Those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year represent a powerful political constituency in the state and previous attempts to impose tax increases on this group have been blocked by the state legislature.

E. Other states that have tried to impose similar targeted tax increases to maintain the solvency of their Medical Aid programs have met with mixed success.
The problem with B is that a program can remain solvent even if the aid it receives doesn't address the underlying cause of its problems. Think of a simpler case. Imagine that my brother has lost his job just as his rent increases, and that he asks me for money so that he can remain solvent. If I give him money, I'm not solving the underlying problems -his unemployment and increased expenses- but the money I give him will still allow him to buy groceries and pay rent. Similarly, the additional tax revenue from high income individuals can keep the Medical Aid plan afloat even if it doesn't address what caused the increased medical costs in the first place.

But now imagine that, in the past, when my brother lost his job, my wife vetoed my plan to lend him money. Though there's no guarantee that she'll do so again this time, if she does, my brother would be in trouble. Similarly, if the state legislature has blocked tax increases on high-income individuals in the past, it may not guarantee that they will do so in the future, but if they do, the plan to fund Medical Aid is in big trouble. D might not be perfect, but it's the best of the bunch.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course