Critical Reasoning

The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A. For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
B. While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
C. Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
D. Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
E. The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[spoiler]this one I hate, need to guess... can't sort out only E comes to my mind... hate!!!!![/spoiler]

yes i think E may be the answer

as minisiters in india have assets in crores but they earns in few lacs

pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:yes i think E may be the answer

as minisiters in india have assets in crores but they earns in few lacs

you are too sane for GMAT CR; the answer is insane-keep picking next ones [spoiler](OA isn't E)[/spoiler]

Night reader wrote:The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A. For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
B. While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
C. Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
D. Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
E. The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[spoiler]this one I hate, need to guess... can't sort out only E comes to my mind... hate!!!!![/spoiler]

IMO C , although i was confused between C and D, C come as a winner because it points out the error in the government method of calculation with some external reference which is well established as stated in the option, option D do just about the alternate method but it didn't point out any error in the current system, option E i believe is just restating the paragraph without providing any proof to it..!!!

manpsingh87 wrote:

Night reader wrote:The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A. For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
B. While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
C. Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
D. Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
E. The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[spoiler]this one I hate, need to guess... can't sort out only E comes to my mind... hate!!!!![/spoiler]

IMO C , although i was confused between C and D, C come as a winner because it points out the error in the government method of calculation with some external reference which is well established as stated in the option, option D do just about the alternate method but it didn't point out any error in the current system, option E i believe is just restating the paragraph without providing any proof to it..!!!

ok, the portions underlined in your answer exactly repeat Manhattan's explanation - heh / I am more interested in how the error in government method of calculation or namely the detection of error can be linked to some (OPS-contradicts to most - explained in fine-spoken way by ADAM and Mitch, the BTG experts recently here at the forum, 50%=most and some=one, two or more) external reference (we may as well imply that the Government is the public, and the private sector is non the public - how we can have apples to be set on orange tree?)

I believe reasoning behind this question and its answer are either not accurate or not sufficiently explained by Manhattan's CAT question review nor done by you.

then i will try with C

Night reader wrote:

manpsingh87 wrote:

Night reader wrote:The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A. For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
B. While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
C. Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
D. Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
E. The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[spoiler]this one I hate, need to guess... can't sort out only E comes to my mind... hate!!!!![/spoiler]

IMO C , although i was confused between C and D, C come as a winner because it points out the error in the government method of calculation with some external reference which is well established as stated in the option, option D do just about the alternate method but it didn't point out any error in the current system, option E i believe is just restating the paragraph without providing any proof to it..!!!

ok, the portions underlined in your answer exactly repeat Manhattan's explanation - heh / I am more interested in how the error in government method of calculation or namely the detection of error can be linked to some (OPS-contradicts to most - explained in fine-spoken way by ADAM and Mitch, the BTG experts recently here at the forum, 50%=most and some=one, two or more) external reference (we may as well imply that the Government is the public, and the private sector is non the public - how we can have apples to be set on orange tree?)

I believe reasoning behind this question and its answer are either not accurate or not sufficiently explained by Manhattan's CAT question review nor done by you.

hi brother i'm glad to find out that my reasoning matches with the official explanation, coming back to your point, what if say goldman sachs, credit suisse or bain consulting comes out with their report claiming that government's method of calculation is wrong,do you think government is going to take it in a light manner.?? i agreed that option in itself is controversial but its the best among the bad lot, that is why i picked it..!!!

@manpsingh87, you could kill A-B-D-E with only one statement which just came to my mind, and I am sharing with you /GMAT CR will be testing argument strengthening/weakening topic likewise the one we discuss extensively/

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

to imply a change (alternative) means to suggest something.

You could not tell me - do not stand (if I'm not seated), do not speak (if I'm not conducting a speech) - change calculation method (if I'm not availing another calculation method) - nothing to change into

answer C suggests that private sector has calculated, found an error (because they calculated, performed research) and may share (or sell ) its calculation method with the Government. None of the other answer choices imply that the Government's method was recalculated, found error containing and there's another alternative for calculation. Answer D stands close to it, but it closes the door when it says that "an alternate method" i.e. the Government's method could be error-free too, just "an alternate method"

any other thoughts ?

manpsingh87 wrote:

Night reader wrote:

manpsingh87 wrote:

Night reader wrote:The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A. For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
B. While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
C. Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
D. Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
E. The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[spoiler]this one I hate, need to guess... can't sort out only E comes to my mind... hate!!!!![/spoiler]

IMO C , although i was confused between C and D, C come as a winner because it points out the error in the government method of calculation with some external reference which is well established as stated in the option, option D do just about the alternate method but it didn't point out any error in the current system, option E i believe is just restating the paragraph without providing any proof to it..!!!

ok, the portions underlined in your answer exactly repeat Manhattan's explanation - heh / I am more interested in how the error in government method of calculation or namely the detection of error can be linked to some (OPS-contradicts to most - explained in fine-spoken way by ADAM and Mitch, the BTG experts recently here at the forum, 50%=most and some=one, two or more) external reference (we may as well imply that the Government is the public, and the private sector is non the public - how we can have apples to be set on orange tree?)

I believe reasoning behind this question and its answer are either not accurate or not sufficiently explained by Manhattan's CAT question review nor done by you.

hi brother i'm glad to find out that my reasoning matches with the official explanation, coming back to your point, what if say goldman sachs, credit suisse or bain consulting comes out with their report claiming that government's method of calculation is wrong,do you think government is going to take it in a light manner.?? i agreed that option in itself is controversial but its the best among the bad lot, that is why i picked it..!!!

Night reader wrote:@manpsingh87, you could kill A-B-D-E with only one statement which just came to my mind, and I am sharing with you /GMAT CR will be testing argument strengthening/weakening topic likewise the one we discuss extensively/

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

to imply a change (alternative) means to suggest something.

You could not tell me - do not stand (if I'm not seated), do not speak (if I'm not conducting a speech) - change calculation method (if I'm not availing another calculation method) - nothing to change into

answer C suggests that private sector has calculated, found an error (because they calculated, performed research) and may share (or sell ) its calculation method with the Government. None of the other answer choices imply that the Government's method was recalculated, found error containing and there's another alternative for calculation. Answer D stands close to it, but it closes the door when it says that "an alternate method" i.e. the Government's method could be error-free too, just "an alternate method"

any other thoughts ?

manpsingh87 wrote:

Night reader wrote:

manpsingh87 wrote:

Night reader wrote:The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A. For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
B. While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
C. Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
D. Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
E. The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[spoiler]this one I hate, need to guess... can't sort out only E comes to my mind... hate!!!!![/spoiler]

IMO C , although i was confused between C and D, C come as a winner because it points out the error in the government method of calculation with some external reference which is well established as stated in the option, option D do just about the alternate method but it didn't point out any error in the current system, option E i believe is just restating the paragraph without providing any proof to it..!!!

ok, the portions underlined in your answer exactly repeat Manhattan's explanation - heh / I am more interested in how the error in government method of calculation or namely the detection of error can be linked to some (OPS-contradicts to most - explained in fine-spoken way by ADAM and Mitch, the BTG experts recently here at the forum, 50%=most and some=one, two or more) external reference (we may as well imply that the Government is the public, and the private sector is non the public - how we can have apples to be set on orange tree?)

I believe reasoning behind this question and its answer are either not accurate or not sufficiently explained by Manhattan's CAT question review nor done by you.

hi brother i'm glad to find out that my reasoning matches with the official explanation, coming back to your point, what if say goldman sachs, credit suisse or bain consulting comes out with their report claiming that government's method of calculation is wrong,do you think government is going to take it in a light manner.?? i agreed that option in itself is controversial but its the best among the bad lot, that is why i picked it..!!!

hmm.... that seems plausible brother...!! great going and all the best ...!!!!

That was a nice discussion guys.

I was confused b/w C & D and i chose C coz i thought it confirms the same thing stated in the argument.

Argument implies that there could be people who are not under poverty but still marked as under poverty by govt calculation method.

Same thing has been confirmed by ans C that most established research studies states that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government’s calculation method.

D- says abt alternate method but does not tell anything about the invalidity of govt method or challenge its findings.

I knw this was a tricky one..... but this was my way of choosing this... let me know if my reasoning makes sense.