In the past, every ten-percentage-point increase in cigarette prices in the country of Coponia has decreased per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent. Coponia is about to raise taxes on cigarettes by 9 cents per pack. The average price of cigarettes in Coponia is and has been for more than a year 90 cents per pack. So the tax hike stands an excellent chance of reducing per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A.Tobacco companies are unlikely to reduce their profit per pack of cigarettes to avoid an increase in the cost per pack to consumers in Coponia.
B.Previous increases in cigarette prices in Coponia have generally been due to increases in taxes on cigarettes.
C.Any decrease in per capita sales of cigarettes in Coponia will result mainly from an increase in the number of people who quit smoking entirely.
D.At present, the price of a pack of cigarettes in Coponia includes taxes that amount to less than ten percent of the total selling price.
E.The number of people in Coponia who smoke cigarettes has remained relatively constant for the past several years.
assumption question
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:44 pm
- Location: UK
- Thanked: 21 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:680
imo E
if the population stays constant and cigarette consumption decreases then the consumption per capita decreases.
For example - population = 1000
consumption = 100,000 cigarette packs
per capita consumption (consumption per person) = 100,000/1000 = 100
if population stays constant = 1000
consumption decreases to 80,000
per capita consumption = 80,000/1000 = 80 (therefore, per capita consumption decreased)
Hence, imo E
if the population stays constant and cigarette consumption decreases then the consumption per capita decreases.
For example - population = 1000
consumption = 100,000 cigarette packs
per capita consumption (consumption per person) = 100,000/1000 = 100
if population stays constant = 1000
consumption decreases to 80,000
per capita consumption = 80,000/1000 = 80 (therefore, per capita consumption decreased)
Hence, imo E
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:30 am
- Thanked: 15 times
- Followed by:2 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
IMO A
A.Tobacco companies are unlikely to reduce their profit per pack of cigarettes to avoid an increase in the cost per pack to consumers in Coponia.
If tobacco companies can reduce their profit .. then a tax hike will not increase price .. thus will not decrease consumption....
I tried denial test....
Please correct me if im wrong...
Whts the OA..??
A.Tobacco companies are unlikely to reduce their profit per pack of cigarettes to avoid an increase in the cost per pack to consumers in Coponia.
If tobacco companies can reduce their profit .. then a tax hike will not increase price .. thus will not decrease consumption....
I tried denial test....
Please correct me if im wrong...
Whts the OA..??
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 891
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:21 am
- Thanked: 27 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:660(
I also vote for B
Conclusion:
So the tax hike stands an excellent chance of reducing per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent.
increased taxes ---> decrease per capeta sales
If taxes were nor the only reason for decreased sales then conclusion will not work.
B.Previous increases in cigarette prices in Coponia have generally been due to increases in taxes on cigarettes.
Negate:
Previous increases in cigarette prices in Coponia have NOT generally been due to increases in taxes on cigarettes.
Conclusion doest work here
Conclusion:
So the tax hike stands an excellent chance of reducing per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent.
increased taxes ---> decrease per capeta sales
If taxes were nor the only reason for decreased sales then conclusion will not work.
B.Previous increases in cigarette prices in Coponia have generally been due to increases in taxes on cigarettes.
Negate:
Previous increases in cigarette prices in Coponia have NOT generally been due to increases in taxes on cigarettes.
Conclusion doest work here
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
Why B is wrong IMO
every ten-percentage-point increase in cigarette prices in the country of Coponia has decreased per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent
The conclusion says every 10% hike in prices ... will lead to decrease in consumption... It doesn't matter the increase is due to Taxes or Something else...
every ten-percentage-point increase in cigarette prices in the country of Coponia has decreased per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent
The conclusion says every 10% hike in prices ... will lead to decrease in consumption... It doesn't matter the increase is due to Taxes or Something else...
- ronniecoleman
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:00 pm
- Location: New Delhi , India
- Thanked: 13 times