1000 CR

[f2001290]

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.
Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?
(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise.
(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes.
(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers.
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes.
(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid.

[arocks]

IMO- E

[jangojess]

one more E

[camitava]

Guys, I have a little doubt! Look the question says -

Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?

Now to me, E is not coming as the logical conclusion of the information in both the statements above rather it is sticking to the last sentence! Again B is sticking to first sentence only. A and D can not be the option to chose. Then C can be an option to chose.

[jan08]

it looked straight forward to me initially and i nailed E as the answer but after reading camitava's analysis I am confused now coz he has a point..

OA please? with explanation

[lawalx]

ans is C

[mayonnai5e]

I don't know what the OA is, but here is my analysis. Let's forget about the answer choices and look at the statements and break them down into logical components:

"Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased."

Abolish taxes --> real taxpayers, disposable incomes up

"Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared."

Abolish taxes --> public employees, income gone

Since these both start at the root logical component, "abolish taxes," we cannot make any logical connections between the two effects (incomes up and incomes disappearing). In other words, we cannot say something like:

"real taxpayers disposable incomes have gone up so public employees incomes have disappeared"

But if we look at the two effects, there is a paradox there. How can a public employees disposable income raise (as suggested by the first statement) while at the total income disappears (as suggested by the second statement)? So if both of these statements must be true, which we should assume they are, then there must be an explanation for this paradox. That explanation is C - public employees are not real taxpayers so they would be exempt from statement one.

Note that in this question, both statements are truths. They are stated as fact without opinion. As such, there is no room for opinion in the answer choice. Thus the following choices (A and D) can be immediately eliminated as they are opinions:

(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise and
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes

The lesson: When statements are given as strictly IF-THEN statements like the example above, it's best to break it down into logical pieces as I have done above. Also, when such statements are devoid of opinion then the answer choices should also be devoid of opinion.

[edit: just checked the 1000CR document and C is the OA]

[mayonnai5e]

I would just like to add that this type of question is not like the questions you will find in the OG books nor the GMATPrep test nor (I would wager) in the actual GMAT exam.

This is a specific type of question that has a very strict format and structure and method to solve it, but it is completely unlike anything I've seen from official materials. In other words, take this question with the grain of salt.

However, it is useful sometimes to be able to break down logical statements like I've done, but I found I only used such analysis on the rarest of occasions.

[mundasingh123]

Guys pls correct me .B,C and E are all valid inferences.C is the only Inference which uses info from both the statements