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

Redeem

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the

by aspirant2011 » Sun May 15, 2011 4:52 am
In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes. The argument above requires which of following assumptions?

A. During the year following the tax increase, the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes did not increase by as much as it had during the year prior to the tax increase.
B. The one percent fall in cigarette sales in the year prior to tax increase was due to a smaller tax increase.
C. The pretax price of a pack of cigarettes gradually decreased throughout the year before and the year after the tax increase.
D. For the year following the tax increase, the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes was not eight or more cents lower than it had been the previous year.
E. As the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes rises, the pretax price also rises.

[spoiler]OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:01 pm
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:720

by sourabh33 » Sun May 15, 2011 6:36 pm
IMO D

Conclusion : Volume of C sales --> (Strongly Related) --> After T price

Option A. Pretax price increase in the year prior to T increase > Increase during year following T increase

This does not impacts the conclusion. Although the increase in the prior year could be 10% and in next year it could be 8%, the post tax price will be higher in the next year due to a 8 cent tax addition

Option B. 1% drop was due to small tax increase

Tempting, but the ambiguity of small increase makes it non relevant: a 2% increase could lead to a 1% drop of 1% to 1%

Option C. Pre Tax price continued to decrease gradually over last two years

This actually could be a weakener,though a very generic statement: a gradual decrease may not make up for the eight cent increase in tax.

Option D. This is it. If the pre tax price decreased by 8 or more cents it could make up for the tax increase and therefor nullify the conclusion.

Option E. : Could be strengthening the statement, as the overall price increase is higher leading to a lower sales volume
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:02 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by champmag » Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm
IMO:D

The argument has the conclusion that volume of cigratte sales is strongly related to after tax price of cigrettes. We need an asumption thatc onnects this conclusion with the premise.

1.)This option compares the pretax price of the year following the tax increse and the year previous year. The statement does no mention of the after tax price. Even if the pretax price of this year did not increase by as much this year as previous year, there is not link provided for the after tax price.

2. This is explicitly atated in the argument..thus it cannot be our assumption.

3. The decrease of the pre tax price again has no relevance to the conclusion of the argument.

4.This is a tricky statement comparing the pre tax prices of the two years. If the pretax price was 8 or more cents lower the previous year then this year, then the after tax increse of 8cents would level the price to equivalent of what it was before the tax or even lower.
This will weaken the conclusion of the argument.

For ex. suppose the price of cigratte previous year was 20 cents.
Now if we take the pretax price of the following year to be 12 cents, then an increse of 8 cents makes the after tax price as 20 cents. That is levelled with that of previous year. This would mean that an increase in price is not the cause of the sales going down. The argument is weakened.

Therefore this is the correct assumption.

E.) This statement has no relevance to the argument.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
Thanked: 4 times

by jainrahul1985 » Tue May 31, 2011 8:45 am
Hi Experts,
Please help me understand this question , maybe in tabular form . Also help me rule out wrong options . I find this question very tricky .
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue May 31, 2011 9:37 am
aspirant2011 wrote:In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes. The argument above requires which of following assumptions?

A. During the year following the tax increase, the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes did not increase by as much as it had during the year prior to the tax increase.
B. The one percent fall in cigarette sales in the year prior to tax increase was due to a smaller tax increase.
C. The pretax price of a pack of cigarettes gradually decreased throughout the year before and the year after the tax increase.
D. For the year following the tax increase, the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes was not eight or more cents lower than it had been the previous year.
E. As the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes rises, the pretax price also rises.

[spoiler]OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
I received a PM asking me to comment.

Learn to recognize the common flaws.

This argument exhibits a shift in language.
The premise is about the tax increase; the conclusion is about the after-tax price.

The argument connects these two ideas: it assumes that the tax increase led to a price increase.
What must be true for the conclusion to be valid? In order for the after-tax price to go up as a result of the 8 cent tax increase, it must be true that the pre-tax price did not go down by 8 cents or more.

Answer choice D gives us just what we need: it says that the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes was not eight or more cents lower than it had been.

The correct answer is D.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:32 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
aspirant2011 wrote:In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes. The argument above requires which of following assumptions?

A. During the year following the tax increase, the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes did not increase by as much as it had during the year prior to the tax increase.
B. The one percent fall in cigarette sales in the year prior to tax increase was due to a smaller tax increase.
C. The pretax price of a pack of cigarettes gradually decreased throughout the year before and the year after the tax increase.
D. For the year following the tax increase, the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes was not eight or more cents lower than it had been the previous year.
E. As the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes rises, the pretax price also rises.

[spoiler]OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
I received a PM asking me to comment.

Learn to recognize the common flaws.

This argument exhibits a shift in language.
The premise is about the tax increase; the conclusion is about the after-tax price.

The argument connects these two ideas: it assumes that the tax increase led to a price increase.
What must be true for the conclusion to be valid? In order for the after-tax price to go up as a result of the 8 cent tax increase, it must be true that the pre-tax price did not go down by 8 cents or more.

Answer choice D gives us just what we need: it says that the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes was not eight or more cents lower than it had been.

The correct answer is D.
thanks a lot mitch :-).......
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:55 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by aftableo2006 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:46 am
the correct answer is D good question
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:13 am
Just wanted to second what Mitch has said here. Very important to notice a "Shift in language" or I often say "when they add or change something they did not have to." For example, if they suddenly use the word "only" in the stimulus (for no apparent reason) or really say anything that did not have to be said - adjectives and adverbs can be interesting as well as shifting nouns, etc.

This is based it would seem on an official LSAT question where there is an advertisement campaign against cigarettes. The campaign is funded by a tax on the cigarettes themselves and the conclusion is that it is the ads that caused a reported decline in smoking. We are asked to show what makes the conclusion stronger. It is really the same logic. If the retailers lowered the price and absorbed the tax themselves then the consumer would never have noticed the tax and that means it was likely the ads not the tax.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:33 am
D is defender assumption whose concept is given in the book GMAT CRITICAL REASONING BIBLE. in the book there are 2 parts most beautiful-assumption and causal relationship. Other parts are long and not effective when you have to do a question in 2 minute.
Kaplan book have good section of strengthener and weakener and Princeton book have good part of EVALUATE. It is effective to apply those good parts in those books in the test battlefield. Remember there is only 2 minutes for a question.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1