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

Redeem

cigarettes - assumption CR

Expert replies
by aj5105 » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:42 pm
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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Re: cigarettes - assumption CR

by logitech » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:20 pm
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"
Join the discussion

by maihuna » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:43 pm
Logitech, this issue is not closed as the link provided by you.

As for as tis CR goes: I think D is the option.

Situation: The fall in cigarettes is due to increase in taxes.

Reasoning: It is based on what assumption, if fall in volume is to be attributed to price increase due to taxes, it must be that increase in taxes isn't offset against fall in pretax prices, as if that was the scenario the buyers will get similar or lower prices.

D identifies this clearly by saying prices were not down by 8 or more cents to offset the tax increases.
Join the discussion

by vivek.kapoor83 » Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:03 am
I think B.
In D,offsetting the rate due to tax...could be 1 of the reasons...but not necessarily true. They could do this, coz prize of tabbacoo has gone down and blah--2222


In B,The one percent fall in cigarette sales in the year prior to tax increase was due to a smaller tax increase. - if u negate this, it says 1precent fall wasnt due to tax increase. So, it weakens the conclusion by not proving the strong relationship
Join the discussion

by maihuna » Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:08 am
and what is the negate of option D?
Join the discussion

by vivek.kapoor83 » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:39 am
i hv already mentioned wt wil happen if u negate D
Join the discussion

by maihuna » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:14 am
You have mentioned following for D:

In D,offsetting the rate due to tax...could be 1 of the reasons...but not necessarily true. They could do this, coz prize of tabbacoo has gone down and blah--2222

Where is the negation test boss?
Join the discussion

by vivek.kapoor83 » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:56 am
For the year following the tax increase, the pretax price of a pack of cigarettes was [[color=red]b]not[/b[/color]] eight or more cents lower than it had been the previous year.

here to negate...ide bold part.
Now, in followin year price was reduced by 8 cents...this comes out from stmt D after negation
So, how it offset the tax increase
It can offset due to tax increase.
But there could be other reasons as well..S, reason is not sure
Hence IMO B.
OA pls
Join the discussion

by ashley.com » Fri May 13, 2016 2:40 am
I am leaning more towards B
Join the discussion