Critical Reasoning

17. With Proposition 13, if you bought your house 11 years ago for $75,000, your property tax would be approximately $914 a year (1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years); and if your neighbor bought an identical house next door to you for $200,000 this year, his tax would be $2,000 (1 percent of $200,000). Without Proposition 13, both you and your neighbor would pay $6,000 a year in property taxes (3 percent of $200,000).

Which of the following is the conclusion for which the author most likely is arguing in the passage above?
(A) Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value.
(B) If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.
(C) By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes.
(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates.
(E) Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others.

OA after some explanations

B

With proposition 13, they pay less property tax; while one would be $914, $2000 other. If it is repealed, then each has to pay $6000.

If you elaborate the question:
Without proposition 13 , the value of the property will be revalued. (Each house will be $200.000, moreover the assumption is based on the identical houses.) With proposition 13, you pay a fixed property tax(%1 for years); without proposition 13, you pay a current rate (%3).

IMO:B

IMO B

my pick is B

IMO 'B'

I bet the OA is B

Can anyone help me understand why not :

(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates.

@Coffee

No where the author has mentioned that the identical properties will CONTINUE TO be taxed at different rates, if the proposition 13 is repealed. With this proposition, property tax is 1% only.

So, this option becomes irrelevant.

I hope this would be fine with you.

IMO: D

The question:
Which of the following is the conclusion for which the author most likely is arguing in the passage above?

Proposition 13 states if you bought a house 11 years ago you get taxed at an initial rate of 1% ($75,000*1%=$750) growing to $914 at the end of year 11 ($750*((1+.02)^N), N=10, rate would be 21%)

An identical house bought this year for $200,000 gets taxed $2,000 ($200,000*1%). The passage makes no mention of adjusting the rate by a factor for a number of future years.

IMO, Proposition 13 effects homes purchased 11 years ago.

(A) is strongly worded for me. Proposition 13 is unconstitutional is too definative.

(B) is also strongly worded for me. every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase. This would say property taxes will increase even if the value of a home declines (say a home was purchased for $200,000 and is now worth $75,000). Does not make sense.

(C) Proposition does not prevent inflation, the increase of 2% for 11 years is similar to inflation.

(D) IMO is the correct answer. Given my illustration above: If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates.

(E) irrelevant IMO. Again, I interpret Proposition 13 impacting homes purchased 11 years ago not homes purchased this year.

What is the OA?

I agree with banker. His compound INtrest calculation is correct.

Can we gat the OA plz?

This question has been asked before.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/1000cr-gmat- ... -t153.html

Test A question 4 please tell me answer with explanation
4. At one time, European and Japanese companies tried to imitate their American rivals. Today, American appliance manufacturers import European scientists to lead their research staffs; American automakers design cars that mimic the styling of German, Italian, and French imports; and American electronics firms boast in their advertising of “Japanese-style” devotion to quality and reliability. In the world of high technology, America has lost the battle for international prestige.
Each of the following statements, if true, would help to support the claim above EXCEPT:
(A) An American camera company claims in its promotional literature to produce cameras “as fine as the best Swiss imports.”
(B) An American maker of stereo components designs its products to resemble those of a popular Japanese firm.
(C) An American manufacturer of video games uses a brand name chosen because it sounds like a Japanese word.
(D) An American maker of televisions studies German-made televisions in order to adopt German manufacturing techniques.
(E) An American maker of frozen foods advertises its dinners as “Real European-style entrees prepared by fine French and Italian chefs.”
: :

is it E?

whats the OA?

James_83 wrote:is it E?

whats the OA?

No :!: