BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Copeland cigarette tax

Expert replies
by LulaBrazilia » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:12 pm
Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.

Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.

Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?

(A) Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between no change and no decrease

(B) Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change

(C) Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen

(D) Showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect

(E) Pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the effect that Sonya predicts it will have
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Patrick_GMATFix » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:46 pm
Raoul does not dispute Sonya's premise (prices will still be low, and consumption will not be affected), but he challenges her conclusion (that govt revenue from the tax will increase) by introducing a new premise (new prices will be higher than others in the region) and suggesting an alternate conclusion (ppl will buy cigarettes illegally and avoid paying the tax). The full solution below is taken from the GMATFix App.

Image

-Patrick
  • Ask me about tutoring.
Join the discussion

by [email protected] » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:55 pm
Hi LulaBrazilia,

This CR question is an example of a "conversation" prompt. In these situations, it's important to be clear on what the two people agree on and disagree on.

Sonya's logic:
-The government of Copeland is raising the tax on cigarettes
-Even with the tax, the price of cigarettes will still be reasonably low, so consumption probably won't change much
-The government will see INCREASED REVENUE from the tax.

Raoul's logic:
-Cigratte prices will still not be high, so smoking is unlikely to decrease.
-Cigarette prices will NOT be the lowest in the region.
-There might be substantial ILLEGAL SALES of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.

Agree:
-Tax isn't enough to affect consumption
-Cigarette price will still be relatively low

Disagree:
-Government will see revenue increase from tax.
-Illegal sales of cigarettes could be substantial.

Sonya's entire argument works IF cigarettes are purchased LEGALLY (then they'll be taxed and the government will have revenue). Raoul points out that her argument won't necessarily work because raising the tax could lead to an increase in illegal/smuggled cigarettes that WON'T BE TAXED (so the government WON'T have that revenue). We need an answer that matches this logic.

Final Answer: B

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Join the discussion