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

Redeem

Kerosene Heater.. Experts Please Explain.

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic

Select Option

1
0
No votes
2
1
8%
3
3
23%
4
5
38%
5
4
31%
 
Total votes: 13
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:53 am
Location: United States
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:5 members

Kerosene Heater.. Experts Please Explain.

by tanvis1120 » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:30 pm
The Critical Reasoning Question is as follows:

In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heaters were responsible for a significant number of fatalities, government regulators in Country X have banned the sale of kerosene. This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since oil and natural gas, the two available alternative heating fuels, are more expensive than kerosene.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

1. Most citizens of country X base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price
2. It will prove impossible to fully implement the ban of kerosene, since a flourishing black market exists for the sale of banned goods in Country X.
3. Oil and natural gas will be responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.
4. Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.
5. The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:10 pm
The conclusion is that there will be negative effect on disposable income. Because kerosene is banned, consumers must turn to oil and natural gas, which are both more expensive than kerosene.

1. This does not matter; both of the available alternatives are more expensive than kerosene.
2. Irrelevant. Even partial implementation will cause consumers to pay more.
3. Fatal accidents are not relevant to price and effect on disposable income.
4. The portion of income they absorb is irrelevant; an increase in cost will consume more of the income.
5. If they will continue to use heating fuels, and the two options are both more expensive, then there must be paying more, thus leading to a negative effect on disposable income.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:37 am
Location: Kolkata, India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:2 members

by Abhishek009 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:57 am
tanvis1120 wrote:In response to studies showing that accidents involving kerosene heaters were responsible for a significant number of fatalities, government regulators in Country X have banned the sale of kerosene. This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since oil and natural gas, the two available alternative heating fuels, are more expensive than kerosene.
Kerosene responsible for significant number of fatalities - Banned in Country X.

Result : Negative effect on disposable income coz the alternative heating fuels are more expensive.



The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

1. Most citizens of country X base their decision on heating fuel strictly on price

Might be true.

2. It will prove impossible to fully implement the ban of kerosene, since a flourishing black market exists for the sale of banned goods in Country X.

Out of scope.

3. Oil and natural gas will be responsible for fewer fatal accidents than kerosene was before kerosene was banned.

Might be true , but we can't assume it , coz it depends how people will be using it.

4. Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

Might be true, say if its a colder country cost of fuel will be higher.

5. The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels.

Definitely true , the author mentions alternate sources of Heating fuel , to suggest that there will be need for searching alternative to Kerosene which will be cheaper.

Thus heating fuels will continue to be used , the government doesn't ban heating fuels , it simply bans use of Kerosene as a heating fuel..

IMO(E) as well..
Abhishek
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:46 pm

by PrithviMission750 » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:16 am
What is the source of this problem?

I feel '4' and '5' may equally correct

Here is my explanation

4 --> Heating costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X.

Negate 4 --> Heating costs do not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X

This weakens the conclusion since If "Heating costs do not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income" then switching over to oil and natural gas may not or may have little impact on the disposable income of the citizens.

5 --> The citizens of Country X will continue to use heating fuels

Negate 5 --> The citizens of Country X will not continue to use heating fuels

This also weakens the conculsion since If "The citizens of Country X will not continue to use heating fuels " switching over to oil and natural gas may not or may have little impact on the disposable income of the citizens.


"I'd like to solve this with an analogy in an "Indian" context :)

In response to studies showing that accidents involving Cars that use Diesel were responsible for a significant number of fatalities, government regulators in Country X have banned the sale of Diesel. This will have a negative effect on disposable income for the citizens of Country X, since Petrol, the alternative fuel for cars, is more expensive than Diesel.

4 --> Commutation costs absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income of citizens of Country X [Needs to be true]

5 --> The citizens of Country X will continue to use fuel for commutation [Needs to be true]

[/u][/list]
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:31 pm
Prithvi,

The problem here is that you aren't reading the words literally enough.

Specifically-When you see the words "a negative effect on disposable income", you should read that as... "a negative effect on disposable income". I.e., any "negative effect", regardless of size.
If disposable income decreases from $5,000 to $1,000, then, yes, that's "a negative effect on disposable income".
If disposable income decreases from $1,000,000 to $999,999, then... yes, that's still "a negative effect on disposable income".

Instead, it seems you're reading this not literally, but, rather, as "a large enough decrease to have an emotional effect". I.e., you seem to be implying that, as long as the decrease is small relative to the original level of disposable income, that people can just brush it off, as though it were nothing.

I understand your point of view here, but you have to understand that this is a standardized test. The problem with subjective intepretations, like the one described above, is that they're ... subjective. They're different for each test taker. If your disposable income decreases by 0.01% then you might not care-but someone with a different financial history might!
The cure for this problem is simply to read the statements literally.
This weakens the conclusion since If "Heating costs do not absorb a very significant portion of the disposable income" then switching over to oil and natural gas may not or may have little impact on the disposable income of the citizens.
^^ This is the problem. If money is subtracted from disposable income, then that's "a negative effect on disposable income", regardless of whether the decrease is significant in relative terms. (As an analogy, if you steal money from a millionaire... you're still stealing money.)
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1